OF  THE 

U N IVER5  ITY 
OF  I LLI  N O I S 
From  the  Library 
of  the 

Diocese  of  Springfield 
Protestant  Episcopal 
Church 

Presented  1917 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 
AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
STACKS 


. 


\ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/scripturaldefenc00matt_0 


EDITORIAL  NOTICES, 


Rev.  George  Peck,  D.  D. 

After  quoting  the  title  of  the  book,  Dr.  Peck  says : The  above  title- 
page  is  fully  sustained  by  the  arguments  of  the  book.  Any  one  who 
wishes  to  see,  within  a small  compass,  the  arguments  and  false  expo- 
sitions of  Scripture,  by  which  the  errorists  named  endeavor  to  sustain 
their  views  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  completely  refuted, 
should  procure  this  little  book.  It  is  a capital  thing  to  circulate  among 
the  people  where  any  type  of  Unitarianism  is  rife. — Christian  Advo- 
cate and  Journal . 

Rev.  Charles  Pitman,  D.  D. 

This  is  a most  able  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 
The  argument  is  comprehensive,  vigorous,  and  scriptural.  We  have 
read  the  work  with  much  interest,  and  most  cheerfully  recommend  it 
as  a powerful  vindication  of  a doctrine  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of 
the  evangelical  system. — Missionary  Advocate. 

Rev.  Abel  Stevens,  A.  M. 

An  able  little  volume  in  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  * * 
The  line  of  argument  is  vigorously  and  closely  traced,  and  in  a style 
adapted  to  popular  readers. — Zion’s  Herald. 

Rev.  Nelson  Rounds,  A.  M. 

An  able  defense  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  author  has 
done  good  service  to  the  cause  of  truth  in  the  volume  before  us,  and 
we  trust  it  may  be  productive  of  much  good. — Northern  Christian  Ad- 
vocate. 

Rev.  William  Hosmer. 

The  Arian  heresy  has  assumed  a great  variety  of  phases,  and  the 
work  before  us  has  been  prepared  with  special  reference  to  its  latest 
forms.  The  author  writes  in  a perspicuous  style,  and  his  argument 
carries  conviction. — Northern  Advocate. 

Rev.  Samuel  I.  Prime. 

So  brief,  concise,  and  clear  a defense  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
cannot  fail  to  be  timely  and  beneficial. — New  York  Evangelist. 

The  Presbyterian.  (Philadelphia.) 

The  author  has  done  a good  service  in  attacking  that  grand  feature 
of  almost  all  modern  heresies— the  denial  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit.  His  treatise  seems  to  be  peculiarly  adapted  to  plain 
honest  readers,  and  to  general  circulation.  The  subject  is  stated,  the 
scriptural  proofs  adduced,  objections  answered,  and  Arianism  is  shown 
to  be  any  thing  but  the  truth,  as  revealed  from  on  high. 

The  New  York  Recorder. 

This  small  volume  is  wisely  intended  to  meet  a practical  want,  by 
defending  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity — not  so  much  against  scholastic 
speculation  as  against  the  more  popular  forms  of  error. 

The  Christian  Chronicle.  (Philadelphia.) 

The  author  has  presented  a fair  view  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  on 


EDITORIAL  NOTICES. 


this  subject.  He  has  also  exposed  the  fallacy  of  the  objections  brought 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  The  work  was  designed 
and  is  adapted  for  general  circulation. 

Albany  Spectator. 

We  do  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  little  work  to  every  member  of 
the  Evangelical  Church ; and  to  all  who  would  exalt  Jesus  Christ,  as 
very  God,  Lord  over  all,  and  blessed  forever.  It  handles  every  form 
of  Arian  error  ungloved,  and  having  exposed  the  false  doctrines  of  the 
Campbellites,  Hicksites,  Western  New  Lights,  Universalists,  Mormons, 
and  especially  a sect  calling  themselves  “ Christians/’  glories  in  the 
mission  and  Godhead  of  the  Redeemer.  * * * 

Alabama  Baptist. 

This  is  an  exceedingly  well  written  and  valuable  work — clear,  con* 
Cise,  logical,  and  scriptural.  The  author  shows  himself  a complete 
master  of  his  subject,  explaining  what  is  explicable,  and  proving  what 
is  provable.  His  plan  is  original,  but  happy ; and  his  style  is  easy  and 
attractive. 

The  Olive  Branch.  (Boston.) 

This  is  a timely  production— serving  to  quicken  attention  to  what 
must  ever  be  a central  truth  of  Christianity. 

The  True  Wesleyan.  (New  York.) 

We  take  rank  with  Trinitarians,  and  regard  Mr.  Mattison  as  having 
done  good  justice  to  the  subject.  He  is  a close  reasoner,  and  possesses 
a mind  well  adapted  to  polemic  investigation. 


A 


SCRIPTURAL  DEFENCE 

OF  THE 

DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY, 

OR  A CHECK  TO 


MODERN  ARIANISM, 

AS  TAUGHT  BY 

UNITARIANS,  HICKSITES,  NEW  LIGHTS,  UNIVERSALISTS 
AND  MORMONS; 

AND  ESPECIALLY  BY  A SECT  CALLING  THEMSELVES 

“CHRISTIANS.” 


BY  REV.  HIRAM  MATTISOX, 

OF  THE  BLACK  RIVER  CONFERENCE. 


FIFTH  EDITION. 


NEW  YORK: 

HUKTINGTOK  & SAVAGE,  AND  MASON  & LAW, 
23  PARK  ROW, 

OPPOSITE  THE  ASTOR  HOUSE. 


1851. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1846,  by 
HIRAM  MATTISON, 

In  the  C^^k’s  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States 
(or  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


/ 

PREFACE. 


The  subject  to  which  the  following  pages  are  devoted,  has, 
perhaps,  elicited  as  much  inquiry  and  investigation,  first  and 
last,  as  any  one  subject  in  the  whole  range  of  Theology.  It 
was  among  the  first  doctrinal  points  that  seemed  to  engage  the 
attention  of  the  church  generally,  after  the  Apostolic  age ; and 
it  still  continues  to  be  discussed,  more  or  less,  in  all  parts  of 
Christendom.  The  parties  in  this  controversy  are  divided 
into  two  general  classes : Trinitarians,  who  hold  to  a plu- 
rality of  persons  in  unity  of  the  Godhead ; and  Unitarians, 
who  deny  this  doctrine.  The  Trinitarian  class  embraces  what 
are  usually  called  the  orthodox  and  evangelical  churches,  such 
as  Baptists,  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians,  Re- 
formed Dutch,  Lutherans,  &c.;  while  the  Unitarians  claim 
about  the  same  number  of  religious  orders  as  belonging  to  their 
ranks.  There  is,  however,  this  difference  in  the  two  classes 
named : The  Trinitarian  churches  are  decidedly  of  “ one  faith” 
in  regard  to  the  mode  of  the  Divine  existence,  and  the  char- 
acter of  Christ;  but  with  the  Unitarians  it  is  far  otherwise. 
Of  these  there  are  at  least  three  distinct  subdivisions,  distin- 
guished by  a wide  difference  of  opinion  upon  the  very  sub- 
ject respecting  which  they  are  at  issue  with  Trinitarians. 
They  are,  first,  the  Arians  ; who  regard  Christ  as  an  exalted 
creature , and  the  Holy  Ghost  as  an  attribute  or  “ emanation” 
from  the  Father ; secondly,  the  Soctnians,  who  believe 
Christ  to  be  a mere  man ; and  thirdly  the  Sabellians,  who 
teach  that  the  terms  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  merely 
three  names  for  one  person ; instead  of  signifying  three  dis- 
tinct persons  in  one  being. 

As  before  said,  these  all  agree  in  opposing  Trinitarianism,  and 
are  hence  called  Unitarians ; though  as  yet  they  have  not  been 
able  to  agree  upon  a substitute  for  the  orthodox  belief. 

As  to  the  comparative  strength  of  these  classes  respectively, 


IV 


Fur  face. 


it  is  impossible  to  speak  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  It 
is  believed,  however,  that  there  are  more  Anti-Trinitarians 
in  this  country,  who  would  come  under  the  head  of  Arians, 
than  of  either  of  the  other  classes.  Hence  the  prominence 
given  to  this  class  in  our  title-page. 

But  the  Arianism  of  the  present  age  is  not  the  Arianism  of 
the  fourth,  nor  yet  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Though  in 
its  principal  features  it  may  be  little  changed,  it  is,  neverthe- 
less, greatly  modified  and  transformed  in  many  respects ; so 
that  we  feel  justified  in  speaking  of  it  as  an  old  error 
modernized. 

As  we  have  named  several  distinct  sects,  as  the  abettors  of 
Arianism,  it  may  be  important  to  glance  for  a moment  at  their 
respective  tenets.  In  so  doing,  however,  it  will  not  be  expe- 
dient to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  our  main  subject. 

The  term  Unitarian,  when  used  generically,  is  very  prop- 
erly applied  to  all  who  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ; but 
when  used  in  a specific  sense,  it  denotes  only  the  Socinian 
branch  of  the  Unitarian  family.  In  this  sense  the  Socinians  of 
Boston  and  vicinity  are  called  Unitarians,  though  they  consti- 
tute only  one  of  several  Unitarian  denominations.  Although 
this  sect  are  not,  strictly  speaking,  Arians,  we  implicate  them 
in  our  title-page,  not  only  because  there  are  Arians  among 
them,  but  because  the  arguments  of  the  following  pages  are 
as  conclusive  against  Socinianism  as  against  Arianism  itself.* 

The  Hicksites  are  a body  of  seceders  from  the  Orthodox 
Friends,  or  Quakers.  In  their  ranks  they  embody  almost 
every  species  of  Unitarianism.  Elias  Hicks,  their  founder, 
was  a Socinian,  and  was  often  heard  to  say  during  his  public 
ministry,  that  the  blood  of  Christ  had  no  more  virtue  to  atone 
for  sin  than  the  blood  of  a beast.  But  it  is  charitably  believed 
that  his  grossest  blasphemies  were  never  generally  endorsed 
by  his  followers.  Still  they  embraced  most  of  his  notions; 
and  especially  what  he  taught  and  wrote  respecting  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  and  the  character  of  Christ.  They  are, 
therefore,  fully  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  Modern  Arians. 

The  New  Lights  are  little  known,  except  in  some  of  the 


* In  the  first  three  editions  of  this  work,  the  “ Campbellites”  or 
“ Disciples”  were  mentioned  in  the  preface,  and  included  in  this  list, 
as  Arians  in  sentiment.  Of  this  classification,  however,  Mr.  Campbell 
complains,  and  denies  that  either  himself  or  his  followers  are  justly 
chargeable  with  that  heresy.  It  gives  us  pleasure,  therefore,  to  record 
his  disavowal  of  so  pernicious  a doctrine,  though  we  are  certain  that 
many  of  the  early  expositors  of  Mr.  Campbell’s  views,  were  decidedly 
Arian.  We  should  like  to  read  something  upon  this  subject  from  the 
pen  of  Mr.  Campbell  himself. 


PREFACE. 


V 


Western  states,  and  are  probably  not  very  numerous  any 
where.  They  are  said  to  be  Arians  in  sentiment,  and  aro 
classed  here  with  their  brethren,  on  account  of  their  family 
likeness,  as  we  wish  to  follow  out  the  one  great  error  in  all  its 
relationships. 

The  Uni  vers  a lists  are  perhaps  too  well  known  to  require 
any  particular  description.  Among  them  may  be  found  Socin- 
ians  and  Sabellians ; though  a majority  hold  to  a modified 
Arianism.  We  hope,  therefore,  to  do  something  to  check  its 
progress  in  this  direction  also. 

The  Mormons  are  strong  advocates  of  Arianism  with  its 
modern  phases.  They  believe  that  Christ  was  a super-an- 
gelic, but  created  being — that  God  has  a body  like  man,  and 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  soul  of  the  Father ; analogous 
to  the  spirit  of  man  within  him.  They  therefore  oppose  the 
doctrine  that  God  is  without  body  or  parts,  as  well  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  general. 

The  sect  designated  as  “ Christians,”  are  known  by  differ- 
ent names  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  They  are  some- 
times called  “ Christians ,”  (pronouncing  the  first  i long,) 
while  in  other  localities  they  are  distinguished  as  Arians , 
merely,  or  as  Unitarians.  Not  unfrequently  they  are  so  iden- 
tified with  some  prominent  preacher  of  their  doctrines,  as  to 
bear  his  name;  hence  the  Laneites,  the  Plummerites,  &c. 
But  their  sentiments  are  not  materially  affected  by  the  title 
they  bear.  Whether  as  “Christians”  or  “New  Lights,” 
“ Arians,”  or  “ Plummerites,”  they  still  disseminate  the  same 
dangerous  errors.  They  have  never  given  their  views  to  the 
world  in  the  form  of  a Confession  of  Faith,  though  they  have 
several  small  volumes  in  which  their  views  are  set  forth  in  a 
condensed  form,  and  which  amount,  in  fact,  to  a creed.  Of 
these,  Kinkade’s  “ Bible  Doctrine,”  Millard’s  “True Messiah,” 
and  Morgridge’s  “ True  Believer’s  Defence,”  may  be  con- 
sidered as  specimens.  These  works  are  generally  spoken  of 
by  the  order  as  containing  their  sentiments,  though  they  pro- 
fess to  repudiate  all  creeds  but  the  Bible.  They  are  indus- 
triously circulated  by  their  ministers,  and  are  not  unfrequently 
boasted  of  as  orthodox  and  unanswerable  productions.  Mr. 
Kinkade’s  work,  which  was  written  many  years  since,  has 
been  republished  within  a few  years  past,  by  two  preachers  of 
this  sect,  and  recommended  by  them  as  expressing  their  views 
better  than  they  themselves  could  express  them.  Moreover, 
the  “ Christian  Palladium ,”  the  periodical  organ  of  the  de- 
nomination, commends  this  new  edition  in  the  strongest  pos- 
sible terms.  We  name  these  things  to  show  that  in  discussing 
Arianism,  as  found  in  the  above-mentioned  volumes,  we  have 


Vi 


PREFACE. 


not  been  beating  the  air.  These  books  are,  in  fact,  the  ex- 
ponents of  the  views  of  the  order,  as  much  so  as  if  they  were 
publicly  set  forth  as  Confessions  of  Faith. 

From  the  above  remarks,  the  reader  will  readily  understand 
what  is  meant  by  “ Modern  Arianism,”  and  why  so  many 
different  sects  are  implicated  as  its  advocates.  Though  it  is 
proposed  to  consider  only  one  specific  and  general  error,  still, 
as  this  error  runs  out  into  several  different  bodies  of  professed 
Christians,  and  is  more  or  less  modified  by  each,  respectively ; 
it  is  thought  proper  to  name  these  several  bodies,  and  to  class 
them  where  they  legitimately  belong  in  the  controversy. 

Though  this  volume  is  devoted  mainly  to  the  Arian  phase 
of  Unitarianism,  it  is  hoped  that  it  will  not  be  found  wanting 
in  adaptation  to  other  types  of  this  great  error.  As  a Defence 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  it  is  as  well  suited  to  a Socin- 
ian  or  Sabellian,  as  to  an  Arian  community. 

In  preparing  this  work  for  the  press,  the  writer  has  been 
particularly  desirous  to  secure  for  it  the  following  charac- 
teristics : 

1.  A clear  and  natural  method , or  arrangement  of  its  parts. 
The  plan  adopted  is  original,  and,  it  is  thought,  possesses  sev- 
eral important  advantages. 

2.  Brevity , and  by  consequence,  cheapness.  The  mass  of 
readers  have  neither  means  to  pay  for,  nor  time  to  read,  ex- 
pensive and  voluminous  publications. 

3.  Though  concise  and  brief,  it  was  intended  to  be  complete ; 
that  is,  to  embrace  all  that  really  belongs  to  the  subject.  In 
this  respect  it  differs  materially  from  a treatise  on  the  Divinity 
of  Christ,  or  upon  any  other  single  feature  of  Trinitarianism. 

4.  It  discusses  Arianism,  not  as  it  was  a century  ago,  or  in 
the  days  of  Arius,  but  as  it  now  is  in  our  own  country.  This 
is  considered  one  of  its  most  valuable  peculiarities. 

5.  The  style  of  the  work  is  adapted  to  the  class  of  readers 
for  whom  it  was  mainly  intended.  It  is  neither  superficial  on 
the  one  hand,  nor  metaphysical  and  tedious  on  the  other. 
Neither  has  it  been  thought  best  to  employ  technical  and  dif- 
ficult theological  terms,  when  others  could  be  found  equally 
expressive,  and  more  easily  understood. 

These  are  features  not  always  to  be  met  with  in  works  of 
the  kind,  and  such,  it  is  thought,  as  will  favor  the  circulation 
and  promote  the  usefulness  of  the  present  volume.  With  an 
earnest  desire  to  serve  the  cause  of  truth  among  all  orders  of 
Christians,  and  in  hope  of  the  Divine  approval  and  blessing,  it 
is  now  sent  forth  to  the  world.  May  it  be  to  the  glory  of  God. 

New  York,  September,  1846. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 

Page 

Section  I. — The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  has  always  been 
considered  important  by  the  Church  of 
God,  2 

II. — It  essentially  affects  our  views  of  God  as  an 
object  of  worship , ..... 

III.  — It  is  intimately  connected  with  morals , 

IV.  — It  influences  our  love  to  God, 

V. — The  doctrine  of  Atonement  depends  upon 

the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  ...  7 

VI. — The  evil  of  sin  can  be  fully  estimated  only 

in  connection  with  this  doctrine,  . . 8 

VII. — Supreme  love  to  Christ  can  never  be  inno- 
cently indulged,  but  by  admitting  his  pro- 
per Divinity, 8 

VIII. — Trust , Hope,  and  Joy  in  Christ,  are  based 

upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  . . 9 

IX. — The  denial  of  this  doctrine  affects  the  credit 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  a revelation 
from  God, 9 

CHAPTER  II. 

STATEMENT  OF  DOCTRINES — DEFINITION  OF  TERMS. 


Doctrines  Stated, .11 

Section  I. — The  term  “ Son” 12 

II. — The  term  “ person” 14 


viii 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Section  III. — The  term  “ Trinity ” — not  in  the  Bible,  15 

IV. — The  term  “ incarnation ,”  . . . 16 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 


Arian  and  Trinitarian  Unity, 17 

Unity  essential  to  a Trinity, 18 

Scripture  proofs  of  unity,  . . . . 18,  19 

Arianism  virtually  denies  unity, 19 

Arian  liberties  with  the  Scriptures,  ...  19,  20 


CHAPTER  IV. 

TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 

Doctrine  stated,  20 

Proved  I. — From  Isa.  ix.  6 — “ Unto  us  a child  is  born,”  21 

II. — From  Mic.  v.  2 — “ But  thou,  Bethlehem,”  &c.  22 

III.  — From  Heb.  x.  5 — “ A body  hast  thou  pre- 

pared me,”  22 

IV.  — From  1 Peter  iii.  18 — “ Put  to  death  in  the 

flesh,”  22 

V. — From  Rom.  ix.  5 — “ Of  whom,  as  concern- 
ing the  flesh  Christ  came,”  22 

VI.  — From  Phil.  ii.  5 — “ Form  of  God” — “ form  of 

a servant,”  23 

VII.  — From  Heb.  ii.  14-17 — “Took  part”  of  “flesh 

and  blood,”  24 

VIII. — From  Matt.  xxii.  41 — “ David’s  God  and 

son,”  24 

IX. — From  Rev.  xxii.  16 — “Root  and  offspring  of 

David,”  25 

X.  — From  John  xvii.  11,  compared  with  xiv. 

23 — “ I am  no  more  in  the  world” — makes 
his  abode  with  us,  25 

XI.  — From  Mark  xiv.  7,  with  Matt,  xxviii.  20 — 

“I  am  with  you  alway” — “me  ye  have 
not  always,”  • 25 

XII.  — Arianism  the  “spirit  of  Antichrist”  mention- 

ed 1 John  iv.  3,  and  2 John  6,  7. — Why 
not  fellowship  or  commune  with  Arians,  26,  27 


CONTENTS.  ix 

CHAPTER  V. 

HUMANITY  OP  CHRIST. 

Page 

Section  I. — Christ  was  man  corporeally , . ♦ . 30 

II. — He  was  man  mentally , ....  31 

III.  — He  was  man  morally , ....  33 

IV. — “His  relationships  imply  his  humanity,  . 33 

V. — Was  known  as  man  by  his  cotemporaries,  34 

VI. — Is  called  man  by  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  34 

VII. — Christ  asserts  his  own  humanity,  . . 35 

VIII. — Proper  humanity  was  essential  to  an  atone- 
ment, 35 

IX.— Christ  must  be  our  “ kinsman11  or  relative,  to 

become  our  “ Redeemer.”  Lev.  xxv.  25,  35 

X. — Was  tempted  “in  all  points”  like  man,  35 

XI. — Is  adduced  by  the  Apostle  Paul  as  a speci- 
men of  human  resurrection,  . . .36 

XII. — Christ  is  our  Mediator — pattern,  . . 37 

Recapitulation  of  arguments,  ...  37 

CHAPTER  VI. 

DEITY  OP  CHRIST. 

Doctrine  stated  at  length,  38,  39 

Arian  notions  of  Divinity— what  they  mean  by  “di- 
vine,” as  applied  to  Christ,  40 

Christ  not  a il  creature”-*- Col.  i,  15,  and  Rev.  iii.  15,  con- 
sidered, 41 

Basis  of  the  argument — attributes,  ...  42,  43 

Section  I.— God  a spirit  without  body  or  parts,  . . 44 

II. — God  is  the  real  and  only  Creator , . . 47 

Christ  created  all  things,  . . 48 

Agency  and  Delegation  scheme,  . 48 — 51 

III.  — Christ  the  Eternal  Being,  ...  52 

IV.  — Christ  the  Omnipotent  Being,  ...  54 

V. — Christ  is  Omniscient,  ....  56 

Consideration  of  Matt.  xxiv.  36,  . . 57 

VI. — Christ  is  Omnipresent,  ...  62 

VII.  — He  is  the  proper  object  of  religious  worship,  64 

Arian  doctrine  of  subordinate  worship, 

considered  at  length  and  refuted,  65,  73 

VIII.  — Scriptures  implying  the  Deity  of  Christ,  73 

IX.— The  titles  of  Christ  are  proofs  of  his  supreme 

Divinity,  74 


X 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Sec.  X. — The  Deity  of  Christ  follows  from  the  fact  that 

h e forgives  sins,  79 

Arian  and  Papal  notion  of  pardon  by  proxy,  80 
Recapitulation  of  arguments,  81 

CHAPTER  VII. 

DEITY  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

Section  I. — Of  the  nature  of  God  as  “ a spirit,”  . . 83 

II.  — Doctrines  proved  from  2 Cor.  iii.  16,  17,  .84 

III.  — From  Acts  xxviii.  25,  ....  85 

IV.  — The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Creator,  . . .85 

V. — His  Divinity  is  implied,  Matt.  xii.  31 — sin 

against  the  Holy  Ghost,  . . .85 

VI.  — The  Holy  Spirit  is  Omniscient,  . . 86 

VII. — He  is  Omnipresent,  . . . . .86 

VIII. — He  is  Eternal , 86 

IX. — The  terms  “ Holy  Ghost ” and  “ God ” are  used 

synonymously  in  the  Scriptures,  86 

X. — He  is  the  God  who  called  the  Apostles  to  the 

Ministry,  &c.  87 

XL — Has  absolute  authority  over  the  Church,  87 
Recapitulation  of  arguments,  88 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

the  holy  ghost  a distinct  person  from  the  father. 

Section  I. — He  is  a mind  or  intelligence,  89 

II. — The  Spirit  has  intelligence  or  knowledge,  90 

III.  — The  Holy  Ghost  has  will,  90 

IV.  — Is  distinguished  from  the  Father  in  the 

Scriptures,  in  the  same  manner  that  the 
Son  is,  90-92 

V.  — The  Arian  arguments  for  Christ’s  sepa- 

rate existence  from  the  Father,  proves 
the  Spirit  at  least  to  be  a distinct  person,  92 

VI.  — The  Holy  Spirit  is  subject  to  the  Son  as 

well  as  the  Father,  92 

VII.  — The  personal  acts  of  the  Spirit  prove  his 

distinct  personality,  93 


CONTENTS. 


xi 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 

Page 

Summary  of  points  established, 96 

Section  I— Plurality  of  the  term  “ Godhead”  . . 97 

II. — Of  the  term  “ Elohim”  Gen.  i.  1,  . .97 

III.  — “ Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,”  Gen.  i.  26,  98 

IV.  — “The  man  is  become  as  one  of  us”  Gen. 

iii.  22.  99 

V.  — “ Go  to,  let  us  go  down,”  &c.  xi.  7,  .99 

VI. — Proved  from  Isa.  vi.  8,  ....  99 

VII. — From  1 John  v.  7.  “ There  are  three  that 

bear  record  in  heaven,”  &c. — text  vindi- 
cated at  length  as  genuine,  101 — 108 

Its  true  doctrine  set  forth,  108 

Arian  proof-texts  considered,  viz.  John  xvii. 

20 — 23  ; 1 Cor.  iii.  7,  8;  and  Galatians 
iii.  28,  109-111 

VIII. — A trinity  of  persons  proven  from  Matt,  xxiii. 

9 — “ Go  ye  therefore  and  teach,”  113 

IX. — From  the  Apostolic  benediction,  2 Corin- 
thians xiii.  14,  113-114 

CHAPTER  X. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY  ANSWERED. 


Section  I. — That  it  is  “ of  human  origin,”  . . 115 

II. — “ An  invention  of  Popery,”  . . . 116 

III.  — That  “ it  is  unscriptural,”  . . . 118 

IV.  — “ It  is  a mystery,”  . . . . 119 

V.  — “ It  is  unreasonable,”  ....  120 

VI. — “ It  represents  Christ  as  two  persons,”  and 

thus  makes  out  four  persons  in  the  God- 
head, 121 

VII. — “ Allows  us  only  a human  sacrifice  in  the 

atonement,”  122 

VlII. — “Goes  to  say  that  the  Son  of  God  never  died,”  124 

IX. — “It  declares,  in  substance,  that  God  died,”  125 

X. — “Admits  no  humiliation  in  the  advent  of 

Christ,”  126 

XI. — “ Allows  of  no  Mediator  between  God 

and  us,”  126 

XII. — “ Represents  Christ  as  sending  himself  into 

the  world,  praying  to  himself,”  &c.,  127 


xii 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Sec.  XIII.— “ It  makes  the  sufferings  of  Christ  on  the 

cross  to  be  comparatively  nothing,”  128 

CHAPTER  XI. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM  STATED  AND  URGED. 

Section  I. — Arianism  is  of  suspicious  origin,  133 

II. — Is  a system  of  unbelief  rather  than  a sys- 
tem of  faith,  134 

III.  — It  shuns  investigation,  or  “ hateth  the  light,”  134 

IV.  — It  recognizes  at  least  three  distinct  Gods,  135 

V. — It  acknowledges  two  distinct  Saviours,  135 

VI. — It  endorses  some  of  the  worst  features  of 
Popery — worship  of  creatures — pardon  by 
proxy — intolerance,  136 — 141 

VII. — It  is  pointedly  reprobated  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, 142 

VIII.— Modern  Arianism  destroys  the  personality 

of  God,  angels,  and  disembodied  Spirits,  143 

IX. — It  destroys  all  ground  of  trust  in  the  Lord 

Jesus  Christ,  143 

X. — It  denies  the  doctrine  of  Atonement  by 

Christ,  145 

XI. — It  takes  away  the  strongest  proofs  of  human 

resurrection,  147 

XII. — It  robs  God  of  the  honor  of  Creation  and 
providence,  and  wholly  excludes  him  from 
participation  in  the  affairs  of  this  world,  148 

XIII.  — It  keeps  bad  company,  and  has  a strange  af- 

finity to  other  forms  of  error,  149 

XIV.  — It  has  never  been  received  as  truth  by  the 

Church  of  God,  149 

XV. — It  has  never  been  blessed  of  God  as  an  in- 
strument of  extensive  reformation,  152 

XVI. — In  the  absence  of  the  Divine  blessing,  it  re- 
sorts to  unjustifiable  and  wicked  means  to- 
sustain  itself,  153 

XVII. — Modern  Arianism  outrages  philosophy,  rea- 
son, revelation,  consistency,  and  com- 
mon sense,  155 

XVIII. — It  wholly  excludes  God  and  Christ  from  the 

Church,  and  from  the  world,  157 

General  Summary  of  arguments — conclusion,  159 


A SCRIPTURAL  DEFENCE,  ETC. 


CHAPTER  I. 

IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 

Before  entering  upon  our  main  design,  we  in- 
vite attention  for  a few  moments  to  the  importance 
and  general  bearing  of  the  subject.  From  the  days 
of  Arius  it  has  been  a chosen  scheme  with  his  dis- 
ciples to  represent  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  as  a 
matter  of  mere  speculation,  and  consequently  of 
little  importance.  The  first  step  in  almost  every 
effort  to  disseminate  Arianism,  is,  if  possible,  to  in- 
duce the  belief  that  the  opposite  doctrine  has  no 
practical  bearing,  that  we  may  believe  or  disbelieve 
it,  without  in  the  least  affecting  our  Christian  ex- 
perience, or  impeding  our  progress  in  the  way  to 
heaven. 

If  such  is  the  nature  of  the  subject,  the  produc- 
tion of  the  following  pages  is  a criminal  waste  of 
time  and  paper  ; and  no  person  should  participate 
in  our  guilt,  by  reading  what  we  have  written. 
But  should  the  reader  conclude  to  proceed,  the  at- 
tentive perusal  of  these  pages  will  be  expected  of 
those  only  who  have  proper  views  of  the  nature  and 
importance  of  the  subject ; as  no  wise  man  will 
spend  much  time  or  thought  on  a matter  of  little 
or  no  consequence.  This  question,  then,  should  be 
1 


2 


IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


settled  at  the  outset.  If,  as  has  been  alleged,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  of  little  importance,  and 
has  no  necessary  connection  with  our  present 
or  future  happiness,  this  work  should  be  thrown 
aside  at  the  close  of  the  first  chapter;  and  the 
whole  subject  consigned  to  forgetfulness.  On  the 
other  hand,  should  it  be  made  to  appear  that  this 
doctrine  is  so  far  fundamental  in  Christianity,  and 
so  interwoven  with  its  whole  frame-work,  as  to  in- 
volve in  its  rejection  the  rejection  of  the  saving 
truth  of  God,  and  the  blood  of  atonement,  and  con- 
sequently the  hope  of  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  no 
reasonable  man  will  dismiss  the  subject  with  a su- 
perficial examination  ; or  rest  contented  till  he  has 
learned  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ. 

I.  That  this  doctrine  has  been  considered  and  de- 
fended as  a doctrine  of  vital  importance,  by  a ma- 
jority of  Christians  in  all  ages,  few  will  deny.  It 
is  impossible  to  account  for  the  long  and  earnest 
controversies  that  have  been  kept  up  from  the  time 
of  Arius,  upon  this  subject,  without  supposing  that 
one  party,  at  least,  considered  the  point  in  dispute 
a matter  of  great  interest.  It  would  be  an  invidi- 
ous reflection  upon  the  Church,  to  suppose  that  she 
has  contended  thus  long  and  earnestly  about  nothing. 
It  is  too  late  now,  after  centuries  of  polemic  war- 
fare, to  throw  this  doctrine  aside  as  a matter  of 
mere  speculation.  Besides  the  general  sentiment 
of  the  Church  for  eighteen  hundred  years,  it  is  a 
consideration  of  no  small  weight,  as  it  respects  this 
point,  that  nine-tenths  of  all  the  professed  Chris- 
tians in  the  land  consider  it  a doctrine  of  vital  im- 
portance, and  as  lying  at  the  very  foundation  of  the 
Christian  system.  So  deeply  are  they  impressed 
with  this  belief,  that  they  not  only  discard  the  op- 
posite error  as  false,  and  ruinous  in  its  tendencies, 


IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


3 


but  they  even  refuse  to  fellowship  those  who  un- 
derstandingly  embrace  it;  or  to  admit  that  they 
have  built  upon  the  rock  Christ  Jesus.  Metho- 
dists, Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Orthodox  Quakers. 
Episcopalians,  Reformed  Dutch,  and  Lutherans, 
all  agree  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  an  es- 
sential doctrine  of  Revelation.  Now  were  the 
above  churches  Romanists — were  they  grossly  ig- 
norant or  corrupt,  or  even  if  they  all  belonged  to 
the  same  ecclesiastical  organization,  the  case  would 
be  different.  But  this  is  not  the  fact.  They  are 
all  Protestants  and  students  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  have  learning  and  ability  to  understand  them ; 
and  as  to  their  piety,  the  most  conscientious  Arians 
themselves  will  readily  fellowship  them  as  the 
children  of  God.  Besides,  each  church  has  its  pe- 
culiarities in  doctrine  and  government,  and  its  se- 
parate interests ; and  yet,  on  the  point  in  hand 
they  unite  in  a common  verdict,  not  only  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  true,  but  that  those  who 
understandingly  reject  it,  “deny  the  Lord  that 
bought  them.” 

But  allowing  that  this  doctrine  has  no  intrinsic 
importance  ; does  not  the  fact  that  it  is  generally 
believed  by  the  Church  of  Christ,  invest  it  with  an 
importance  that  should  secure  for  it  a candid  and 
prayerful  consideration  ? If  it  is  considered  funda- 
mental, by  any  body  of  Christians,  must  they  not 
in  consistency  reject  all  from  their  communion  who 
deny  it  ? and  ought  we  to  complain  of  their  ex- 
clusiveness, till  we  have  inquired  whether  or  not 
they  have  sufficient  warrant  for  their  course.  If 
they  are  wrong  in  proscribing  the  opposite  senti- 
ment, then  indeed  the  Arians  have  cause  to  com- 
plain ; but  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  justifiable 
in  so  doing,  we  should  not  only  cease  to  brand  them 


4 


IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


as  bigots  and  persecutors,  but  commend  their  pru- 
dence and  caution,  in  rearing  up  effectual  barriers 
against  the  encroachments  of  error. 

But  let  us  look  at  the  merits  of  the  doctrine  it- 
self. The  Christian  religion  stands  pre-eminently 
above  every  other  religion,  as  furnishing  correct 
knowledge  of  the  true  God.  This  knowledge  lies 
at  the  root  of  every  man’s  theology,  and  must,  con- 
sequently, affect  his  whole  creed,  his  practice,  and 
his  eternal  condition.  The  present,  then,  must  be 
a question  of  great  magnitude.  Unlike  many 
fruitless  controversies  that  disturb  the  peace  of 
Zion,  this  question  involves  the  great  first  princi- 
ples of  the  Christian  faith.  It  relates  to  Jehovah 
— his  nature  and  mode  of  being  ; to  the  character 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  whole  plan  of  remedy  and 
salvation  by  His  atonement.  How  then  can  it  be 
a subject  of  little  importance  ? and  what  Christian 
can  be  indifferent,  in  respect  to  matters  so  vitally 
connected  with  his  hope  of  heaven  ? Let  us  ap- 
proach the  subject,  then,  with  seriousness  and  with 
candor  ; and  let  us  bestow  upon  it  that  time  and  at- 
tention which  its  importance  demands. 

The  following  remarks,  chiefly  from  Mr.  Wat- 
son, will  serve  more  fully  to  illustrate  the  point 
under  consideration. 

II.  It  essentially  affects  our  views  of  God  as  the 
object  of  our  worship , whether  we  regard  him  as 
one  in  essence,  and  one  in  person,  or  admit  that  in 
the  unity  of  this  Godhead  there  are  three  equally 
Divine  persons.  These  are  two  very  different  con- 
ceptions. Both  cannot  be  true.  The  God  of  those 
who  deny  the  Trinity,  is  not  the  God  of  those  who 
worship  the  Trinity  in  unity,  nor  on  the  contrary ; 
so  that  one  or  the  other  worships  what  is  “ nothing 
in  the  world and,  for  any  reality  in  the  object  of 


IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


5 


worship,  might  as  well  worship  a pagan  idol.  If 
God  be  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  the  duties 
owing  to  God  will  be  duties  owing  to  that  Triune 
distinction,  which  must  be  paid  accordingly;  and 
whoever  leaves  any  of  these  out  of  his  idea  of  God, 
comes  so  far  short  of  honoring  God- perfectly,  and 
of  serving  him  in  proportion  to  the  manifestations 
he  has  made  of  himself.  As  the  object  of  our  wor- 
ship is  affected  by  our  respective  views  on  this 
great  subject,  so  also  its  character . We  are  between 
the  extremes  of  pure  and  acceptable  devotion,  and 
gross  and  offensive  idolatry,  and  must  run  to  one  or 
the  other.  If  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  true, 
then  those  who  deny  it  do  not  worship  the  God  of 
the  Scriptures,  but  a fiction  of  their  own  framing  ; 
if  it  be  false,  the  Trinitarian,  by  paying  Divine 
honors  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  equally 
guilty  of  idolatry,  though  in  another  mode.  It  is  as 
important  then  to  know  the  truth  on  this  subject,  as 
it  is  to  know  whether  we  are  idolaters,  or  the  wor- 
shippers of  the  true  God. 

III.  The  connection  of  this  doctrine  with  morals , 
is  also  obvious  and  striking.  The  Trinitarian 
scheme  is  essentially  connected  with  the  doctrine  of 
Atonement,  while  the  Unitarian  theory  necessarily 
excludes  it.  From  this  arise  opposite  views  of  God, 
as  the  Governor  of  the  world — of  the  law  under 
which  we  are  placed — of  the  nature  and  conse- 
quences of  sin,  the  violation  of  that  law — points 
which  have  an  essential  relation  to  morals,  because 
they  affect  the  nature  of  the  sanctions  which  accom- 
pany the  law  of  God.  He  who  denies  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  and  its  necessary  adjunct,  the  Atone- 
ment, makes  sin  a matter  of  comparatively  trifling 
moment : God  is  not  strict  to  punish  it ; and  if  pun- 
ishment follow,  it  is  not  eternal.  Whether,  under 
1* 


6 


IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


these  soft  and  easy  views  of  the  law  of  God,  and  of 
its  transgression  by  sin,  morals  can  have  an  equal 
sanction,  or  human  conduct  be  equally  restrained, 
are  points  too  obvious  to  be  argued. 

IV.  Our  love  to  God,  which  is  the  sum  of  every 
duty,  its  sanctifying  motive,  and  consequently  a 
compendium  of  all  true  religion,  is  most  intimately, 
and  even  essentially  connected  with  the  doctrine  in 
question.  God’s  love  to  us  is  the  ground  of  our 
love  to  him  ; and  by  our  views  of  that,  it  must  be 
heightened  or  diminished.  The  love  of  God  to 
man  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  is  that  manifestation  of 
it  on  which  the  Scriptures  most  emphatically  and 
frequently  dwell,  and  on  which  they  establish  our 
duty  of  loving  God  and  one  another.  Now  the 
estimate  which  we  are  to  take  of  the  love  of  God, 
must  be  the  value  of  his  gifts  to  us.  His  greatest 
gift  is  the  gift  of  his  Son,  through  whom  alone  we 
have  the  promise  of  everlasting  life ; but  our  esti- 
mate of  the  love  which  gives  must  be  widely  differ- 
ent, according  as  we  regard  the  gift  bestowed,  as  a 
creature , or  as  a divine  person, — as  merely  a son  of 
man,  or  as  the  Son  of  God.  If  the  former  only,  it 
is  difficult  to  conceive  in  what  this  love,  constantly 
represented  as  u unspeakable ” and  astonishing,  could 
consist.  Indeed,  if  we  suppose  Christ  to  be  a man 
only,  on  the  Socinian  scheme,  or  as  an  exalted  crea- 
ture, according  to  the  Arians,  God  might  be  rather 
said  to  have  “ so  loved  his  Son ” than  us,  as  to  send 
him  into  the  world,  on  a service  so  honorable,  and 
which  was  to  be  followed  by  so  high  and  vast  a re- 
ward, that  he,  a creature , should  be  advanced  to  uni- 
versal dominion,  and  receive  universal  homage  as 
the  price  only  of  temporary  sufferings,  which,  upon 
either  the  Socinian  or  Arian  scheme,  were  not 
greater  than  those  which  many  of  his  disciples  en- 


IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


7 


dured  after  him,  and,  in  many  instances,  not  so 
great. 

For  the  same  reason,  the  doctrine  which  denies 
our  Lord’s  Divinity  diminishes  the  love  of  Christ 
himself,  takes  away  its  generosity  and  devotedness , 
presents  it  under  views  infinitely  below  those  con- 
tained in  the  New  Testament,  and  weakens  the 
motives  which  are  drawn  from  it  to  excite  our  grati- 
tude and  obedience.  If  Christ  was  in  the  form  of 
God,  equal  with  God,  and  very  God,  it  was  then  an 
act  of  infinite  love  and  condescension  in  him  to  as- 
sume our  nature ; but  if  he  was  no  more  than  a 
creature,  it  was  no  surprising  condescension  to  em- 
bark in  a work  so  glorious  ; such  as  being  the  Sa- 
viour of  mankind,  and  such  as  would  advance  him 
to  be  Lord  and  Judge  of  the  world,  to  be  admired, 
reverenced,  and  adored,  both  by  men  and  angels. 
To  this  it  may  be  added,  that  the  idea  of  disinterest- 
ed, generous  love,  such  as  the  love  of  Christ  is  rep- 
resented to  be  by  the  Evangelists  and  the  Apostles, 
cannot  be  supported  upon  any  supposition  but  that 
he  was  properly  a Divine  person.  As  a man  and 
as  a creature  only,  however  exalted,  he  would  have 
profited  by  his  exaltation  ; but,  considered  as  Divine, 
Christ  gained  nothing.  To  deny  his  Divinity, 
therefore,  is  to  deny  that  his  love  to  man  is  generous 
and  disinterested;  hence  the  Arian  and  Socinian 
schemes  totally  destroy  the  true  character  of  the 
love  of  Christ.  They  alter  the  very  foundations  of 
Christianity,  and  destroy  all  the  powerful  argu- 
ments based  upon  the  love , humility , and  condescen- 
sion of  our  Lord,  which  are  the  peculiar  motives  of 
the  Gospel. 

V.  The  doctrine  of  satisfaction  or  atonement  de- 
pends upon  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord ; and  is  there- 
fore consistently  denied  by  Arians  and  Socinians. 


8 


IMPORTANCE  CF  THE  SUBJECT. 


No  creature  could  merit  from  God,  or  do  works  of 
supererogation.  If,  then,  Christ  be  a mere  creature , 
there  is  no  intrinsic  value  or  merit  in  his  atonement ; 
or,  in  other  words,  we  have  no  atonement. 

The  question  of  the  Trinity,  then,  amounts  sub- 
stantially to  this : Did  Christ  die  for  us,  in  the  sense 
of  making  an  atonement  for  sin  ? Indeed  the  very 
terms  of  salvation,  and  the  grounds  of  our  hope  of 
heaven  are  affected  by  it. 

VI.  The  manner  in  which  the  evil  of  sin  is  esti- 
mated must  be  very  different,  on  these  views  of  the  Di- 
vine nature  respectively  ; and  this  is  a consequence 
of  a directly  practical  nature.  Whatever  lowers  in 
men  a sense  of  what  an  Apostle  calls  u the  exceed- 
ing sinfulness  of  sin,”  weakens  the  hatred  and  hor- 
ror of  it  among  men,  and  by  consequence  encour- 
ages it.  In  the  Orthodox  doctrine,  sin  is  an  evil  so 
great  in  itself,  so  hateful  to  God,  so  injurious  in  its 
effects,  so  necessary  to  be  restrained  by  punishment, 
that  it  dooms  the  offender  to  eternal  exclusion  from 
God,  and  to  positive  endless  punishment,  and  could 
only  be  forgiven  through  such  a sacrifice  or  atone- 
ment, as  that  of  the  death  of  the  Son  of  God.  A 
denial  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  must  therefore 
lower  our  views  of  the  magnitude  of  sin,  as  it  low- 
ers the  sacrifice  required  for  its  expiation  ; and  the 
more  feeble  our  sense  of  the  enormity  of  sin,  the 
more  careless  shall  we  be  in  respect  to  its  com- 
mission. 

VII.  Love  to  Christ , which  is  njade  so  eminent 
a grace  in  internal  and  experimental  Christianity, 
changes  also  its  character,  as  our  views  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  are  changed.  If  Christ  be  a 
mere  creature , our  love  to  him  cannot  be  supreme; 
for  that  would  be  to  break  the  first  and  great  com- 
mandment— “ Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 


IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


9 


with  all  thy  heart,”  &c.  We  must  therefore  love 
him  as  we  love  any  creature  from  whom  we  have 
received  benefit ; and  our  love  must  be  constantly 
guarded  and  restrained , lest  it  should  become  exces- 
sive, and  wean  our  thoughts  from  God.  But  surely 
it  is  not  under  such  views  that  love  to  Christ  is  re- 
presented in  the  Scriptures  ; and  against  its  excesses, 
as  against  “ worshipping  and  serving  the  creature 
more  than  the  Creator,”  we  have  certainly  no  ad- 
monitions— no  cautions.  Supreme  love  to  Christ, 
is  an  infallible  characteristic  of  a true  Christian ; 
and  so  essential  is  it,  in  genuine  Christian  expe. 
rience,  that  the  curse  of  God  is  pronounced  on  all 
who  love  him  not.  “ If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be  Anathema,  Maran-atha.” 

To  lower  the  character  of  Christ,  then,  is  to  les- 
sen our  love  to  him,  and  to  run  the  fearful  hazard 
of  incurring  the  curse  of  God  and  the  u wrath  of 
the  Lamb.” 

VIII.  The  general  and  habitual  exercise  of  the 
affections  of  trust,  hope,  joy,  &c.,  towards  Christ, 
are  all  interfered  with  by  the  Arian  doctrine.  If 
the  Redeemer  were  not  omnipotent  and  omniscient, 
could  we  be  certain  that  he  always  hears  our  pray- 
ers, and  knows  the  source  and  remedy  of  all  our 
miseries  ? If  he  were  not  all-merciful,  could  we 
be  certain  he  must  always  be  willing  to  pardon  and 
relieve  us  ? If  he  were  not  all-powerful,  could  we 
be  sure  that  he  must  always  be  able  to  support  and 
strengthen,  to  enlighten  and  direct  us?  Of  any 
being  less  than  God,  we  might  suspect  that  his  pur- 
poses might  waver,  his  promise  fail,  his  existence 
itself,  perhaps,  terminate  ; for,  of  every  created  be- 
ing, the  existence  must  be  dependent  and  ter- 
minable. 

IX.  The  language , too,  we  say  not  of  the 


10 


IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SUBJECT. 


Church  of  Christ  in  all  ages,  for  that  has  been 
formed  upon  her  faith,  hut  of  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves, must  be  altered  and  brought  down  to  these 
inferior  views.  No  dying  saint  could  say,  “ Lord 
Jesus  receive  my  spirit,”  if  Christ  were  a mere 
man  like  ourselves,  and  the  redeemed,  neither  in 
heaven  nor  in  earth,  would  so  dare  to  associate  a 
creature  with  God  in  divine  honors  and  solemn 
worship,  as  to  unite  in  the  chorus,  “ Blessing  and 
honor,  and  glory  and  power,  he  unto  Him  that  sit- 
teth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb  for 
ever !” 

While  we  consider  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
as  interwoven  with  the  very  frame  and  texture  of 
the  Christian  religion,  it  appears  natural  to  con- 
ceive that  the  whole  scheme  and  economy  of  man’s 
redemption  was  laid  with  a principal  view  to  it,  in 
order  to  bring  mankind  gradually  into  an  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Three  Divine  Persons,  one  God 
blessed  for  ever.  We  would  speak  with  all  due 
modesty,  caution,  and  reverence,  as  becomes  us,  al- 
ways in  what  concerns  the  unsearchable  councils 
of  heaven : but  we  say,  there  appears  to  us  none 
so  probable  an  account  of  the  Divine  Dispensa- 
tions, from  first  to  last,  as  what  we  have  just  men- 
tioned, namely,  that  such  a redemption  was  pro- 
vided, such  an  expiation  for  sins  required,  such  a 
method  of  sanctification  appointed,  and  then  re- 
vealed, that  so  men  might  know  that  there  are 
Three  Divine  Persons, — might  be  apprized  how 
infinitely  the  world  is  indebted  to  them,  and  might 
accordingly  be  better  instructed  and  inclined  to  love, 
honor,  and  adore  them  here,  because  that  must  be 
a considerable  part  of  their  employment  and  hap- 
piness hereafter. 

The  subject  before  us,  then,  is  not  one  of  mere 


STATEMENT  OF  DOCTRINES,  ETC.  11 

curiosity  and  speculation,  but  one  in  which  every 
man  has  an  interest,  precious  as  the  happiness  of 
the  soul,  and  deep  as  eternity  itself.  Let  us  resolve, 
therefore,  to  know  the  truth,  and  fully  to  settle  this 
great  question.  Let  us  open  before  us  that  store- 
house of  knowledge,  the  Bible  ; and,  with  a pa- 
tience and  candor  becoming  an  inquiry  so  impor- 
tant, and  a determination  not  to  be  biased  by  pre- 
judices or  prepossessions,  let  us  pursue  our  investi- 
gations in  the  fear  of  God.  Above  all,  let  us  in- 
voke that  influence  from  above  which  alone  can 
reveal  to  us  “ the  things  of  the  Spirit,”  and  guide 
us  safely  by  the  truth  unto  eternal  life. 


CHAPTER  II. 

STATEMENT  OF  DOCTRINES DEFINITION  OF  TERMS. 

In  order  to  a clear  understanding  of  the  subject 
to  be  considered,  it  may  be  necessary  briefly  to 
state  both  the  Arian  and  Trinitarian  doctrines,  and 
also  to  define  certain  terms  that  will  be  used  in  the 
progress  of  the  discussion. 

Trinitarians  believe  that  there  is  but  one  living 
and  true  God,  everlasting,  without  body  or  parts,  of 
infinite  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  the  Maker 
and  Preserver  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible  ; 
but  that  in  unity  of  this  Godhead  there  are  three 
persons — the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  They 
hold  that  the  Son,  who  is  eternal,  and  truly  and 
properly  Divine,  took  upon  himself  humanity,  in 
order  to  make  an  atonement  for  sin  ; so  that  two 
whole  and  perfect  natures,  that  is  to  say,  humanity 
and  Divinity,  w’ere  united  in  the  person  of  Christ. 


12 


STATEMENT  OF  DOCTRINES. 


They  also  regard  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a distinct  per- 
son in  the  Godhead,  and  one  in  substance,  power, 
and  eternity,  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Not 
that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  are  each  God, 
separately  and  independently  considered,  (for  we 
never  contemplate  their  Divinity  in  this  light,)  hut 
that  these  three,  in  unity,  constitute  the  one  all- 
perfect, incomprehensible,  and  eternal  Being. 

On  the  other  hand  modern  Arians  affirm  that 
there  is  no  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Godhead 
— that  Christ  has  but  one  nature, — that  though 
higher  than  angels,  he  is,  nevertheless,  a created 
being,  neither  human  or  Divine ; and  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  merely  an  attribute,  or  emanation  from 
the  Father.  Some,  however,  regard  the  Spirit  as 
the  mind  or  soul  of  the  Father,  in  connection  with  a 
Divine  body,  which  is  seated  upon  the  throne  of 
heaven. 

The  above  is  an  epitome  of  the  respective  creeds, 
as  near  as  they  can  be  stated  in  few  words. 

As  the  terms  son , person , trinity , and  incarnation , 
are  frequently  used  in  the  course  of  this  work,  and 
the  sense  in  which  we  use  them  may  be  misunder- 
stood, it  may  be  necessary  to  show,  at  this  point,  in 
what  sense  they  are  employed. 

I.  The  term  son  always  points  out  a relation; 
but  those  relations  differ  very  much  in  their  na- 
ture, as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  examples : — 
1.  It  primarily  signifies  the  relation  of  a male- 
child  to  his  natural  father,  as  u David  the  son  of 
Jesse.”  2.  That  of  the  Christian  to  God,  as  “ to 
them  gave  He  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God.” 
u For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they 
are  the  sons  of  God.”  “ Beloved,  now  are  we  the 
sons  of  God.”  3.  That  of  the  angels  to  God,  as 
u when  the  sons  of  God  came  to  present  themselves 


DEFINITION  OF  TER  AS. 


13 


before  the  Lord.”  4.  That  of  a pupil  to  his  in- 
structor, as  Eli  said  to  Samuel,  “ I called  not,  my 
son  ;”  and  Paul  calls  Timothy  and  Titus  his  “ sons 
in  the  faith.”  5.  That  of  a creature  to  the  Creator,  as 
“ Adam  was  the  son  of  God.”  6.  Judas  was  the  u son 
of  perdition.”  7.  The  relations  of  the  persons  in 
the  Godhead,  as,  u Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.” 
Here  we  have  seven  different  relations , expressed 
by  the  term  son ; and  only  one  of  them  is  tnat  of  a 
son  to  his  natural  father.  Now,  we  may  declare 
Christ  to  he  u the  Son  of  God,”  and  yet  be  very  in- 
definite in  our  meaning,  unless  we  show  in  what 
sense  we  use  the  term  son.  Mr.  Millard,  and  most 
other  Arians,  say,  he  is  a son  in  the  first  sense — 
u a natural  Son  of  God,  as  Solomon  was  the  son  of 
David.”  Hence  the  stress  laid  upon  the  term  son , 
by  Arians  generally,  in  preaching  and  prayer. 
But  Kinkade  says  he  is  the  Son  of  God  by  creation 
— “ in  the  sense  that  Adam  was  the  Son  of  God.” 
So  these  great  reformers  are  as  far  apart  in  their 
views  of  Christ,  as  a created  being  is  from  the  Un- 
created. Perhaps  others  would  say  he  is  a son  by 
regeneration,  or  as  the  angels  are  sons  of  God,  &c. 

Trinitarians  understand  the  term  in  a different 
sense  when  applied  to  Christ.  The  humanity  of 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  because  supernaturally 
begotten  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence,  in  view  of 
her  conception  by  the  Spirit,  the  angel  said  to 
Mary,  u that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee 
shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.”  But  that  spirit- 
ual nature  that  existed  before  the  world  began,  can- 
not be  a son  in  this  sense,  because  it  was  never 
thus  begotten.  Neither  is  He  the  Son  of  God  as 
Solomon  was  the  son  of  David  ; for  son)  in  its 
primary  sense,  implies  a father  and  mother,  as  well 
as  a natural  birth  ; and  to  make  Christ  the  Son  of 
2 


14 


STATEMENT  OF  DOCTRINES. 


God  in  this  sense,  would  be  to  say  that  there  was  a 
father,  mother,  and  son  in  heaven  before  time  be- 
gan ; and  that  all  of  them  were  Gods ! Absurd 
and  blasphemous  as  is  this  notion,  it  is  constantly 
implied  whenever  Christ  is  represented  as  being 
u the  natural  Son  of  God.”  The  term  “ Son,” 
then,  when  applied  to  the  Divine  Nature  of  Christ, 
is  used  to  express  a relation  subsisting  between  the 
persons  of  the  Godhead,  which,  instead  of  being 
like  that  of  a family  of  father,  mother,  and  chil- 
dren, is  different  from  all  human  or  earthly  relations, 
and  to  all  finite  minds  incomprehensible. 

II.  The  term  person,  like  son , is  used  in  various  sen- 
ses in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  elsewhere.  Its  first  ac- 
ceptation is  u an  individual  human  being,  consisting 
of  body  and  soul.”  It  is  used  also  to  denote  the  body 
only,  as,  when  we  say,  a lady  adorns  her  person ; and 
to  distinguish  one’s  self  from  a representative,  as 
u the  queen  delivered  her  speech  in  person ,”  &c.  A 
corporate  body  is  a person  in  law,  and  the  term  per- 
son is  applied  to  God  the  Father,  Heb.  i.  3.  In  the 
latter  instance,  it  is  evidently  used  to  denote  one  of 
u the  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,”  and  not  in 
its  common  acceptation.  It  is,  therefore,  used  by 
Trinitarians  to  denote  either  of  the  three  that  con- 
stitute the  Supreme  Being,  the  Father,  Word,  or 
Holy  Ghost.  But  it  is  differently  understood  by 
Arians.  Because  it  commonly  signifies  a body  and 
soul,  and  is  applied  to  the  Father,  they  infer  that 
God  has  a body!  Hence  Kinkade,  in  attempting 
to  make  out  a corporeal  Deity,  veils  his  absurd  no- 
tions under  the  running  caption,  “ God  a real  per- 
son.” That  by  “ per  son]  ’ he  means  a body , is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact,  that  he  goes  on  to  show  that  God 
has  hands,  feet,  eyes,  ears,  face,  arms,  &c., — that  he 
has  a u shape  ” like  man,  and  that  he  is  local ; or, 


DEFINITION  OF  TERMS. 


15 


in  other  words,  is  not  everywhere  present.  In  this 
he  is  followed  by  Arians  generally.  No  wonder, 
therefore,  that  they  oppose  the  doctrine  of  a plural- 
ity of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  if  by  person  they 
mean  a body , or  a distinct  and  independent  being. 
But  Trinitarians  use  the  term  in  a different  sense 
altogether.  They  employ  it  merely  to  denote  one 
of  those  distinctions  in  the  Godhead  which  are  re- 
vealed in  the  Scriptures.  Nor  is  it  a valid  objection 
to  this  view  of  the  subject  that  we  are  unable  'pre- 
cisely and  fully  to  define  the  terms  person  and  son, 
as  applied  to  the  Deity.  They  are  intelligible  so 
far  as  to  point  out  a distinction  and  a relation , but  the 
precise  nature  of  that  relation,  is  not  to  be  compre- 
hended by  mortals.  cc  Canst  thou  by  searching  find 
out  God  ? Canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  unto 
perfection  ? It  is  as  high  as  heaven  ; what  canst 
thou  do  ? deeper  than  hell ; what  canst  thou  know  ?” 
How  preposterous  for  man,  after  having  heard,  from 
the  lips  of  God,  all  that  he  has  been  pleased  to  re- 
veal, to  refuse  to  believe  what  he  has  revealed  of  him- 
self, simply  because  he  cannot  comprehend  the  infi- 
nite God,  and  scan  with  precision  his  mode  of  being ! 
W e should  remember  that  “ secret  things  belong  to 
God,  but  revealed  things  to  us  and  our  children.” 

III.  Much  stress  is  often  laid  upon  the  circum- 
stance that  the  word  Trinity  is  not  found  in  the 
Bible.  But  does  this  affect  the  truth  or  falsity  of 
the  doctrine?  We  are  not  contending  that  the 
term  Trinity  is  a Bible  term , but  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  a Bible  doctrine.  The  term  Trinity 
is  a proper  English  term,  compounded,  according  to 
Webster,  of  ires,  or  three,  and  unus,  or  one.  Hence, 
tri-unity , or  Trinity,  signifies  three-one,  and  is  used 
to  denote  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God. 

Now  if  it  is  insisted  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 


16 


STATEMENT  OF  DOCTRINES. 


nity  is  not  a Scriptural  doctrine,  because  the  word 
trinity  is  not  found  in  the  Bible,  we  may  for  the 
same  reason  deny  the  doctrine  of  Divine  Providence , 
and  of  the  omnipotence , omniscience  and  omnipresence 
of  the  Deity ; as  none  of  these  terms  are  taken  from 
the  Scriptures.  The  truth  is,  we  are  not  bound  to 
express  our  views  of  the  meaning  of  the  Scripture 
in  Bible  language ; neither  do  any  practice  thus, 
even  the  most  conscientious  Arians  themselves. 
Indeed,  to  attempt  to  explain  a text  by  reading  it 
over  and  over  to  his  hearers,  would  be  an  experi- 
ment which  few  Arian  preachers  would  be  willing 
to  make.  They  constantly  use  a unscriptural  terms  ” 
as  they  call  them,  in  preaching,  singing,  and  pray- 
er ; and,  it  is  inconsistent  to  condemn  others  for 
what  we  ourselves  practice.  “ Happy  is  he  that 
condemneth  not  himself  in  that  thing  which  he  al- 
io weth.” 

I Y.  A few  remarks  upon  the  term  “ incarnation ,” 
and  we  close  this  chapter.  Incarnation  is  the  act  of 
being  clothed  with  flesh  ; hence  the  assumption  of 
human  nature,  by  the  pre-existent  Word,  is  called 
the  incarnation  of  Christ.  That  a God  was  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh,”  and  that  u the  Word  was  made 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,”  is  plainly  asserted  in 
the  Scriptures  ; and  this  is  all  we  mean  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  incarnation.  But  we  shall  notice 
this  doctrine  more  fully  hereafter. 


THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 


17 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 

Few  Arian  works  are  published,  in  which  the 
unity  of  God  is  not  professedly  advocated.  It  may 
therefore  seem  strange  to  the  reader  that  this  point 
should  be  gravely  argued  in  the  present  treatise.  A 
moment’s  reflection,  however,  will  show  the  propri- 
ety of  this  course.  The  Arian  notion  of  unity  is  so 
very  peculiar,  that  while  both  Arians  and  Trinita- 
rians hold  to  the  unity  of  Gpd,  there  is  a radical  dif- 
ference in  their  views.  The  former  hold  to  a unity 
that  has  respect  only  to  the  number  of  persons  in  the 
Godhead,  so  that  while  they  affirm  that  there  is  but 
one  person  in  the  Supreme  Being,  they  regard 
Christ  as  God  in  a subordinate  sense,  thus  virtually 
abandoning  the  doctrine  of  Divine  unity.  Hence, 
when  pressed  by  those  texts  which  declare  Christ 
to  be  God,  the  usual  reply  is  that  he  is  God,  but 
not  the  self-existent  and  eternal  God.  So  Mr.  Perry, 
an  Arian  preacher,  “ I am  inclined  to  believe  that 
Christ  is  God,  though  he  is  not  the  only  true  God.”* 
If  we  understand  this  language,  it  implies  that 
there  is  one  finite  and  dependent  God,  and  one  self- 
existent  and  eternal.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  Mil- 
lard and  Kinkade,  and  of  modern  Arians  generally. 
The  point  in  dispute,  then,  is,  whether  there  are  two 
Gods  or  but  one.  We  affirm  that  there  is  but  one 
living  and  tiue  God;  so  that  our  unity  and  the  Arian 
unity  are  two  distinct  things,  one  referring  to  the 
number  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  the  other  to 

* Printed  Discussion  of  1839. 

2* 


18 


THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 


the  number  of  Gods  in  the  universe.  So  important 
is  this  point  in  the  present  discussion,  that  the  whole 
question  turns  upon  it.  If  there  be  a plurality  of  Gods, 
a supreme  and  a subordinate,  as  Arians  assert,  then 
there  is  no  unity,  and  can  be  no  Trinity.  But  if, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  is  but  one  God,  and  Christ 
is  God,  then  it  follows  that  the  Father  and  Son  so 
exist  as  to  constitute  but  one  God,  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  true.  It  is  easy  therefore  to  see 
why  Arians  deny  the  proper  unity  of  God.  They 
are  forced  to  admit  that  Christ  is  God  in  some  sense, 
hence  they  must  either  hold  to  two  distinct  Gods,  or 
admit  that  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  co-exist  in  one 
Being  ; and  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  true. 
To  avoid  Trinitarianism  they  run  to  Polytheism, 
and  embrace  the  doctrine  of  a plurality  of  Gods,  a 
supreme  and  a subordinate.  Against  this  notion 
we  solemnly  protest.  Though  there  is  as  much 
proof  of  the  Deity  of  Christ  and  of  the  Spirit,  as  of 
the  Father  himself,  yet  instead  of  holding  to  a plu- 
rality of  Gods  as  do  Arians,  we  hold  with  St.  John 
that  u these  three  are  one.”  So  clear  are  the 
Scriptures  on  the  subject  before  us,  that  we  scarce 
need  refer  to  any  particular  passage.  Their  voice 
is  uniform  and  unequivocal.  This  grand  feature  of 
Christianity,  which  distinguishes  it  from  Paganism, 
stands  forth  prominently  on  almost  every  page  of 
Revelation  ; and  it  is  obvious  that  if  the  Bible  re- 
veals two  Gods  as  objects  of  worship,  love,  and  reve- 
rence, we  are  little  better  off  than  the  Heathen 
themselves. 

But  what  saith  the  law  and  the  testimony — the 
Holy  one  of  Israel  ? u Before  me  there  was  no  God 
formed,  neither  shall  there  be  after  me.  I,  even  I, 
am  the  Lord ; and  besides  me  there  is  no  Saviour.” 
“ Thus  saith  the  Lord  the  King  of  Israel,  and  his 


THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 


19 


Redeemer  the  Lord  of  hosts,  I am  the  first  and  I am 
the  last,  and  beside  me  there  is  no  God.”  u Is  there 
a God  beside  me  ? yea,  there  is  no  God ! I know 
not  any.” 

Now  Arians  assert  that  Christ  existed  before  the 
world  began,  and  that  the  works  of  Creation , Provi- 
dence and  Redemption , were  delegated  to  him.  Of 
course  then  he  existed  at  the  time  the  above  texts 
were  written  If  then  he  is  a distinct  God  from  the 
Father,  though  in  a subordinate  sense,  how  can 
these  texts  be  true  1 God  here  declares  that  there 
was  no  other  God,  nor  ever  should  be;  and  yet 
Arianism  affirms  that  there  was  at  that  time  another 
and  a distinct  God,  and  has  been  ever  since  ! It  is 
painful  to  see  how  small  matters  are  strained  to  sup- 
port this  feature  of  Arianism — small  as  it  respects 
their  weight  in  the  argument,  though  involving  an 
amount  of  guilt  that  few  would  be  willing  to  incur. 
We  allude  to  altering  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  by 
substituting  one  letter  for  another,  a practice  quite 
common  among  Arian  writers.  To  justify  the  no- 
tion of  two  real  Gods,  it  is  alleged  that  Moses,  the 
Judges  of  Israel,  idols,  &c.  were  Gods.  Moses  and 
the  Judges  were  the  representatives  of  God,  as  his 
executive  officers  under  the  theocracy — Moses  being 
in  a certain  sense  “ as  God ” to  Pharaoh,  and  the 
Judges  as  God  to  the  Israelites.  Of  course  they 
possessed  no  Divinity  whatever.  But  to  elevate 
them  as  far  as  possible,  to  keep  company  with  the 
subordinate  and  finite  God  of  the  Arians,  they  take 
away  all  the  small  g’s  in  those  passages  where  they 
are  mentioned,  and  put  capitals  in  their  place ; so 
that  instead  of  reading  “ I said  ye  are  gods — God 
of  gods — among  the  gods,”  &c.,  as  it  is  in  the  Bible, 
it  reads  “ I said  ye  are  Gods — God  of  Gods — among 
the  Gods,”  &c.,  as  quoted  by  Arian  writers.  This, 


20 


TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 


in  our  view,  is  effectually  altering  the  Scriptures ; 
and  in  principle  is  no  better  than  to  change  words 
or  verses,  or  even  whole  chapters.  We  shall  con- 
sider this  subject  more  fully  when  we  come  to  speak 
of  the  Deity  of  Christ.  Let  it  he  distinctly  under- 
stood, however,  that  we  hold  to  the  unity  of  God  in 
a sense  that  allows  of  but  one  God , while  those  who 
for  other  reasons  are  called  Unitarians,  openly  avow 
their  belief  in  two  distinct  Gods — a supreme  and  a 
subordinate — both  of  which  they  love  and  worship. 
By  this  theory  the  proper  unity  of  God  is  effectually 
denied,  and  it  matters  little  whether  we  have  two 
Gods  or  two  thousands. 


CHAPTER  IY. 

TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 

It  is  a prominent  point  in  the  doctrine  of  tne 
Trinity,  that  Jesus  Christ  has  two  natures.  We 
affirm  that  the  pre-existent  Word,  or  Divinity,  took 
man’s  nature,  so  that  in  the  person  of  Christ  were 
united  two  whole  and  perfect  natures,  humanity 
and  Divinity.  This  Arians  deny.  They  tell  us 
that  he  has  but  one  nature  ; that  the  whole  of  that 
nature  died  and  was  buried ; and  that  strictly  speak- 
ing, he  is  neither  man  nor  God.  Making  him 
equal  with  Moses  and  pagan  gods,  does  not  affect 
the  truth  of  this  assertion.  These  were  finite  gods, 
which,  to  us,  were  no  Gods  at  all.  The  doctrine 
of  the  incarnation,  or  two  natures  of  Christ,  is  a 
very  important  part  of  the  general  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  Arians  are  aware  of  this  ; and  by  them 


TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 


21 


nothing  is  more  violently  opposed  than  what  they 
are  pleased  to  call  66  the  two  nature  scheme.”  In- 
deed, both  parties  agree  that  the  determination  of 
this  single  question  turns  the  scale.  If  Christ  has 
but  one  nature,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  false ; 
but  if  he  has  two  natures,  it  is  true,  Arians  them- 
selves being  judges.  This  point,  then,  should  re- 
ceive special  attention.  We  shall  first  adduce  those 
Scriptures  in  which  both  natures  are  mentioned  in 
connection,  or  implied,  after  which  we  shall  con- 
sider his  humanity  and  Divinity  in  two  distinct 
chapters. 

I.  Isa.  ix.  6 — u For  unto  us  a child  is  born,  unto 
us  a son  is  given,  and  the  government  shall  be 
upon  his  shoulder  ; and  his  name  shall  be  called 
Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  mighty  God,  the  ever- 
lasting Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace.”  In  this 
text  both  natures  are  distinctly  brought  to  view. 
We  have,  first , the  humanity — the  child  born , &c.  ; 
and,  secondly , the  Divinity — the  mighty  God — the 
everlasting  Father.  Both  these  characters  could 
not  be  united  in  one  nature.  To  say  that  the  son 
born  is  the  everlasting  Father,  or,  that  the  mighty 
God  was  born,  is  a perfect  outrage  to  common 
sense,  and  little  less  than  blasphemy  ; but,  to  say 
that  Christ  had  two  natures,  in  one  of  which  he 
was  a “ child,”  and  in  the  other  “ the  mighty 
God,”  is  perfectly  rational  and  consistent. 

The  Arian  exposition  of  this  text  is  in  perfect 
keeping  with  their  system  in  general.  Kinkade 
takes  it  for  granted,  that  there  is  but  one  nature, 
and  hence  that  the  61  mighty  God”  was  born,  and 
given.  He  then  infers  that  Christ  is  inferior  and 
subordinate,  because  he  was  born,  &c.  Now,  the 
truth  is.  his  higher  nature  never  was  born  ; and 
the  subordination  indicated  by  birth  and  childhood, 


22 


TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 


belongs  mainly,  if  not  exclusively,  to  his  humanity, 
which  alone  could  be  born.  In  his  higher  na- 
ture he  was  “ the  mighty  God,”  unborn  and  un- 
originated. 

II.  Micah  v.  2 — “ But  thou,  Bethlehem  Eph- 
ratah,  though  thou  be  little  among  the  thousands  of 
Judah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me 
that  is  to  be  Ruler  in  Israel ; whose  goings  forth 
have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting,”  or,  accord- 
ing to  the  marginal  reading,  “ from  the  days  of 
eternity.”  This  is  a prediction  relative  to  the  birth 
of  Christ  in  Bethlehem.  See  Matt,  ii.,  4th  to  12th 
verses.  But,  while  the  birth-place  of  his  humanity 
is  so  carefully  predicted,  we  are  guarded  against 
the  impression  that  this  was  his  only  nature.  He 
was  to  come  forth  from  Bethlehem,  as  it  respected 
his  humanity,  being  born  in  this  city  of  David  ; 
but,  in  his  higher  nature,  he  had  no  birth — his  go- 
ings forth  having  been  from  of  old,  from  the  days 
of  eternity. 

III.  Heb.  x.  5 — “ Wherefore,  when  he  cometh 
into  the  world,  he  saith,  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou 
wouldest  not,  but  a body  hast  thou  prepared  me.” 
Here  we  have  the  person  that  came  into  the  world, 
which  was  a perfect  nature  before  it  came,  and  the 
body  prepared  for  the  Divinity,  which  was  another 
nature. 

IV.  1 Pet.  iii.  18 — “For  Christ  also  hath  once 
suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he 
might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the 
flesh , but  quickened  by  the  Spirit .”  The  “ flesh,” 
or  humanity,  is  here  clearly  distinguished  from  the 
“ Spirit,”  or  Divinity. 

V.  Rom.  ix.  5 — “ Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of 
whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came , who  is 
over  all,  God  blessed  forever.”  The  flesh , or  hu- 


TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 


23 


manity,  was  of  the  fathers,  that  is,  of  the  seed  of 
Abraham ; but  this  was  true  only  “ as  concerning 
the  flesh ; for  in  his  higher  nature  he  is  “ God 
blessed  forever.” 

VI.  Philip,  ii.  5,  6,  7 — ■“  Let  this  mind  be  in 
you,  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus  : Who,  being 
in  the  form  of  God:  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God ; but  made  himself  of  no  reputa- 
tion, and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a servant , and 
was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men.”  On  this  text, 
we  observe, 

1.  That  in  one  nature  Christ  was  in  the  “ form 
of  God.”  This  form  cannot  mean  bodily  shape, 
for  God  is  a Spirit,  and,  therefore,  has  no  body,  or 
bodily  form.  Again — If  the  form  of  God  was  the 
form  of  his  body,  as  Arians  tell  us,  which  form  is 
that  of  a man,  then  the  “form  of  God”  and  the 
“ form  of  a servant,”  would  be  exactly  the  same 
thing;  and  Christ,  by  taking  on  him  the  form  of  a 
servant,  would  be  only  taking  the  form  of  God,  the 
same  which  he  already  had.  On  this  supposition 
the  text  would  be  utterly  unmeaning.  The  form 
of  God  must  therefore  mean  his  nature — a nature 
not  assumed,  but  inherent,  as  is  clear  from  the 
text. 

2.  In  view  of  this  “ form  of  God,”  it  is  said  he 
“ thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,”  that 
is,  with  the  Father.  This  could  not  be  true  of 
any  nature  short  of  supreme  Divinity.  For  a 
creature  to  assume  to  be  equal  with  th«  great  Je- 
hovah, would  be  downright  robbery  and  treason;' 
hence,  by  the  “form  of  God,”  we  must  understand 
absolute  Divinity. 

3.  This  person,  in  the  form  of  God,  took  upon 
him  another  “ form,”  which  must  of  course  differ 
from  the  first,  namely,  the  form  or  nature  of  a ser- 


24 


TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 


vant.  Here,  then,  we  have  two  distinct  “ forms”  or 
natures — the  “ form  of  God”  and  the  “ form  of  a 
servant”— the  one  equal  with  God  the  Father,  and 
the  other  mere  humanity,  “ the  likeness  of  men.” 

VII.  Heb.  ii.  14-17 — “Forasmuch  then  as  the 
children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also 
himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same  ; — For  verily 
he  took  not  on  him  the  naiure  of  angels ; but  he  took 
on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham.”  Here  are  two  na- 
tures, one  of  which  took  the  other.  The  Divinity 
“ took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham.”  But  it  is 
objected,  that  the  seed  of  Abraham  means  only  the 
body,  which  is  not  the  whole  of  human  nature. 
We  have  yet  to  learn,  however,  that  the  children 
of  Abraham  were  mere  bodies  without  souls. 

VIIL  Matt.  xxii.  41,  42,  43,  44,  45 — “While 
the  Pharisees  were  gathered  together,  Jesus  asked 
them,  saying,  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ? whose  son 
is  he  ? They  say  unto  him,  The  son  of  David. 
He  saith  unto  them,  How  then  doth  David  in 
Spirit  call  him  Lord,  saying,  The  Lord  said  unto 
my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand  till  I make 
thine  enemies  thy  footstool  ? If  David  then  call 
him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son  The  carnal  and 
blinded  Pharisees  were  as  ignorant  of  the  true 
character  of  Christ,  as  they  were  of  the  nature  of 
his  kingdom.  Our  Lord  here  endeavors  to  lead 
them  to  the  truth,  and  discover  to  them  his  two- 
fold nature.  That  he  was  the  son  of  David  he  did 
not  deny ; but  quotes  a passage  where  David, 
when  inspired,  calls  him  Lord  or  Jehovah.  He 
then  asks  how  he  could  be  David’s  Lord,  and  also 
his  son.  To  obviate  this  apparent  difficulty,  they 
must  acknowledge  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation, 
which  our  Saviour  intended  to  teach.  Christ  was 
David’s  God  and  David’s  son ; but  this  could  not 


TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 


25 


be  true  without  two  natures.  His  Divine  nature 
was  David’s  God,  manifest  in  the  flesh ; while  at 
the  same  time  his  human  nature  was  u the  son  of 
David  and  David  knew,  being  a “ prophet,”  that 
u God  had  sworn  with  an  oath  to  him,  that  of  the 
fruit  of  his  loins:  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would 
raise  up  Christ  to  sit  on  his  throne.” — Acts  ii.  30. 

IX.  Rev.  xxii.  16 — Christ  says,  “ I am  the  root 
and  the  offspring  of  David.”  How  could  this  be 
true  if  he  had  but  one  nature.  Could  the  nature 
that  created  David  spring  from  him  as  his  off- 
spring ? or  that  which  sprang  from  David  be  his 
Creator?  The  only  answer  to  this  question  is, 
that  Christ  had  two  natures,  humanity  and  Divin- 
ity. His  human  nature  was  the  “ offspring  of 
David  but  his  Divinity  was  the  root  of  David,  the 
great  Creator  of  all  things. 

X.  John  xvii.  1 1 — Christ  says,  u And  now  I am 
no  more  in  the  world ;”  but  he  says  again,  John 
xiv.  25 — ■“  If  a man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my 
words,  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will 
come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him.” 
How  can  these  sayings  be  reconciled  with  the  no- 
tion that  Christ  has  but  one  nature  ? The  human- 
ity is  “ no  more  in  the  world,”  having  gone  up 
on  high,  to  return  no  more  until  the  general  judg- 
ment ; but  still  Christ  can  come  to,  and  abide  with, 
every  obedient  Christian.  He  must  therefore  have 
two  natures,  one  of  which  is  in  heaven,  while  the 
other  is  ever-present  with  his  saints. 

XI.  The  same  doctrine  is  proved  from  Mark 
xiv.  7,  compared  with  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  In  the 
former  Christ  says — “ Ye  have  the  poor  with  you 
always — but  me  ye  have  not  always.”  In  the  lat- 
ter, he  says,  to  the  same  disciples,  “ Lo,  I am  with 
you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.”  How 


26 


TWO  NATURES  OF  CHRIST. 


could  he  say  he  was , and  was  not , always  with  his 
disciples,  if  he  had  but  one  nature  ? The  answer  is 
obvious.  In  the  first  passage  he  spoke  of  his  hu- 
manity, in  the  second  of  his  Divinity.  The  form- 
er has  long  since  left  the  world,  but  the  latter  is 
with  us  always.  Blessed  be  the  Lord  for  a Divine 
and  ever-present  Saviour  ! 

XII.  We  might  easily  multiply  quotations  on 
this  point,  but  it  is  unnecessary.  With  the  candid, 
the  above  are  sufficient ; and  with  the  obstinate, 
and  wilfully  blinded,  additional  labor  would  be 
thrown  away.  The  doctrine  of  the  two  natures  of 
Christ,  or  the  incarnation,  is  found  in  almost  every 
book  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ; and  is  interwoven 
with  their  very  texture  throughout.  They  plainly 
declare  that  u God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh” — 
that  “ God  was  in  Christ,”  and  that  Li  in  him  dwelt 
all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.’5  But  as  in  the 
days  of  St.  John,  so  now,  there  are  those  who  deny 
this  doctrine,  and  yet  complain  because  we  do  not 
fellowship  them  as  the  children  of  God.  But  how 
can  we,  while  it  is  written,  u Every  spirit  that  con 
fesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh , is 
not  of  God.  And  this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist, 
whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  should  come ; and 
even  now  already  is  it  in  the  world.” — 1 John 
iv.  3.  Again — •“  This  is  the  commandment,  That, 
as  ye  have  heard  from  the  beginning,  ye  should 
walk  in  it.  For  many  deceivers  are  entered  into 
the  world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a deceiver  and  an 
antichrist. — If  there  come  any  unto  you,  and  bring 
not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your  house, 
neither  bid  him  God  speed : for  he  that  biddeth 
him  God  speed,  is  partaker  of  his  evil  deeds.” — 2 
John,  6 — 11. 


HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST. 


27 


As  it  respects  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  Sup- 
per, we  see  no  reason  why  Arians  should  ever  par- 
take of  it,  especially  in  connection  with  Trinita- 
rians. They  deny  the  doctrine  of  incarnation,  and 
also  that  of  the  atonement.  We  believe  both  these 
doctrines,  and  perpetuate  the  euoharist  as  a memo- 
rial of  our  redemption.  Now,  if  we  were  never  re- 
deemed, why  use  a memorial  of  the  atonement? 
If  an  Arian  uses  this  sacrament  at  all,  it  must  be 
for  other  purposes  than  those  contemplated  by  Tri- 
nitarians. In  our  opinion,  it  is  solemn  mockery 
before  God  to  eat  and  drink  the  emblems  of  our 
Lord’s  body  and  blood,  while  at  the  same  time  we 
deny  the  incarnation  and  the  atonement  of  Christ. 
On  this  ground  we  refuse  to  commune  with  Arians. 
If  any  wish  to  use  the  sacraments  for  other  purposes 
than  those  contemplated  in  the  Scriptures,  they 
should  do  so  by  themselves,  and  upon  their  own  re- 
sponsibility. W e wish  no  part  or  lot  in  the  matter. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST. 

9 

Too  little  importance  has  been  attached  to  the 
doctrine  of  Christ’s  humanity,  even  by  some  Trini- 
tarians. By  many  it  has  been  thought  sufficient  to 
establish  his  supreme  Divinity : hence,  where  we 
have  a dozen  sermons  on  that  point,  and  page  after 
page  in  our  theological  works,  we  have  little  or  no- 
thing, comparatively,  to  vindicate  his  proper  hu- 
manity. This  we  consider  a defect  in  the  usual 
method  of  treating  the  subject.  The  two  natures 


28 


HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST. 


stand  or  fall  together.  If  Christ  he  not  man  as  well 
as  God,  then  all  those  Scriptures  that  speak  of  his 
inferiority  and  dependence,  must  refer  to  his  Divin- 
ity ; and  he  cannot  be  the  Supreme  Being.  The 
doctrine  of  Christ’s  humanity  is  therefore,  an  essen- 
tial link  in  the  golden  chain  of  truth  ; and,  as 
no  chain  can  he  stronger  than  its  weakest  iink,  it  is 
quite  as  important  to  defend  this  doctrine,  as  that  of 
his  Divinity.  Some  may  have  neglected  this  point, 
from  a fear  of  being  suspected  of  leaning  towards 
Socinianism  ; but  there  is  no  danger  of  this,  so  long 
as  we  keep  the  idea  before  the  mind,  that  Christ  is 
not  only  man , but  also  God. 

Besides  the  Scriptures  that  refer  to  both  the  na- 
tures of  Christ  in  the  same  connection,  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  there  is  a large  class  that  refer  ex- 
clusively to  his  humanity;  and  another  equally 
numerous  that  refer  solely  to  his  Divinity.  Hu- 
manity and  Divinity  are  distinct  natures  ; hence,  if 
Christ  is  both  man  and  God,  he  must  have  two  na- 
tures, and  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  must  be 
true.  Modern  Arians  deny  that  Christ  is  either 
man  or  God.  They  ridicule  the  idea  of  two  na- 
tures, and  deny  that  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  interpret- 
ed upon  this  principle.  So  far  as  we  can  get  at  their 
real  sentiments,  they  believe  that  Christ  has  one 
compound  nature,  made  up  of  humanity  and  Divin- 
ity ; or,  in  other  words,  that  he  took  half  his  nature 
from  God,  and  half  from  the  Virgin  Mary.  That 
humanity  and  Divinity  are  united,  we  admit ; but 
it  is  obvious  that  the  union  of  two  natures  does  not 
destroy  those  natures.  They  are  still  distinct  na- 
tures, though  not  separate.  The  correctness  of  this 
view  seems  to  have  struck  Mr.  Millard,  with  pecu- 
liar force.  He  saw,  that  if  they  were  whole  and 
perfect  natures  while  separate,  they  must  be  so 


HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST. 


29 


when  united.  Hence,  to  save  his  creed,  a very  nice 
philosophical  distinction  is  invented.  He  tells  us, 
that  Christ  took  half  a nature  from  each  of  his  parents, 
and  that  these  two  half  natures  make  up  the  one 
nature  of  Christ.  u He  partook,”  says  he,  u of  his 
father  as  well  as  his  mother,  yet  not  a whole  com- 
plete nature  from  each.” — “ To  say  that  a son  de- 
rives a whole  nature  from  each  of  his  parents,  is  a 
great  absurdity.” — ■“  He  also  took  part  (not  the 
whole)  of  the  same.” 

Now  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this  distinction  is  not 
only  unphilosophical,  but  absurd.  The  nature  of  a 
thing  is  that  assemblage  of  qualities  or  attributes 
which  are  found  in  it,  or  belong  to  it.  Hence  in 
describing  the  nature  of  gold,  we  name  over  its  'pro- 
perties as  constituting  its  nature.  We  say  it  is  a 
metal,  yellow,  heavy,  ductile,  not  subject  to  rust,  &c. 
A single  particle  of  gold  has  all  the  nature  of  gold  ; a 
single  shot  has  all  the  nature  of  lead  ; and  a dew- 
drop,  all  the  nature  of  water.  On  the  same  princi- 
ple, an  infant  has  a complete  human  nature,  as 
much  so  as  a man,  or  as  all  the  men  on  earth.  But 
Mr.  Millard  says,  a child  does  not  derive  a whole 
nature  from  each  of  its  parents.  Well,  how  then  ? 
Do  some  of  the  distinguishing-  attributes  of  human- 
ity  come  from  one^  and  some  from  the  other?  Is 
the  mortal  nature  from  one  and  the  immortal  from 
the  other  ? or,  is  consciousness  from  the  father,  and 
memory  from  the  mother  ? Both  parents  possess 
a complete  human  nature,  and  a perfect  nature  is 
derived  from  both  ; but  as  the  nature  of  both  parents 
is  the  same,  Jhe  offspring  has  but  one  nature.  A 
shot  has  all  the  nature  of  lead,  and  yet,  if  two  shot, 
or  two  hundred,  are  united,  you  have  but  one  na- 
ture after  all. 

But  Mr.  M.’s  theory  proves  too  much  for  him. 

3* 


30 


HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST. 


He  admits  that  Mary  was  human,  and  God  DIvme. 
Now,  if  Christ  partook  of  both  these  distinct  and 
widely  different  natures,  he  must  have  had  two  na- 
tures ; but  if  he  had  half  a nature  from  God,  and 
half  from  Mary,  he  could  have  had  hut  half  a na- 
ture before  the  days  of  his  incarnation,  and  yet,  with 
but  half  a nature,  he  created  the  universe,  and  sus- 
tained it  for  at  least  four  thousand  years  ! But  this  is 
not  the  worst  feature  of  Mr.  M.’shalf  nature  scheme. 
He  tells  us,  in  another  part  of  his  work,  (pp.  108, 
9,  17,)  that  the  half  nature  of  Christ  that  existed 
before  the  world  began,  was  actually  changed  into 
flesh.  Now  if  a spirit  can  be  changed  into  matter,  or 
flesh,  of  course  it  is  no  longer  spirit ; and  hence 
both  halves  of  Christ’s  nature  must  have  been  flesh. 
He  must  therefore  have  been  all  matter,  without 
any  spirit  whatever  ! How  much  more  rational 
to  suppose,  that  the  pre-existent  nature  remained  the 
same,  while  as  the  Scriptures  assert,  LL  he  took  on 
him  the  seed  of  Abraham,”  or  proper  humanity. 
The  point  of  difference  is  simply  this : Arians  say 
Christ  has  but  one  nature — -a  nature  neither  human 
or  Divine  ; while  we  assert  that  he  has  two  natures, 
and  is  both  man  and  God.  W e propose  to  show, 
therefore,  in  this  chapter,  that  Christ  is  in  one  nature, , 
truly  and  properly  man,  having  a human  body  and 
soul:  and  all  the  essential  attributes  of  real  humanity. 

I.  He  was  man  corporeally.  1.  He  is  of  the 
same  substance  as  other  men.  They  are  matter,  so 
was  he.  2.  He  had  the  same  physical  organization 
as  other  men.  We  are  flesh,  blood,  &c.,  “ fearfully 
and  wonderfully  made,”  and  so  was  Christ.  Even 
after  his  resurrection,  he  said,  “ Behold  my  hands 
and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I myself:  handle  me,  and 
see  ; for  a spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones  as  ye  see 
me  have.”  3.  He  had  the  innocent  habits  of  man. 


HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST. 


31 


He  ate,  drank,  slept,  &c.,  grew  in  stature  like  other 
men,  and  probably  wrought  as  u the  carpenter’s  son,” 
from  the  time  he  was  twelve  years  old,  till  he  en- 
tered upon  his  public  ministry  at  the  age  of  thirty. 
4.  He  was  mortal  like  other  men.  Hence  he  often 
became  weary,  enduring  the  sufferings  that  mor- 
tality is  heir  to,  and  finally  finished  his  life  upon 
the  cross. 

The  same  language  is  used  by  the  inspired 
writer  in  describing  his  death,  that  is  used  in  refer- 
ence to  other  men.  Of  Abraham  and  Ishmael  it  is 
said,  “ they  gave  up  the  ghost.”  Job  says,  u man 
dieth  and  wasteth  away  yea,  man  giveth  up  the 
ghost,  and  where  is  he  ?”  So  also  in  recording  the 
death  of  Christ ; it  is  written  that  “ he  gave  up  the 
ghost.”  Thus 

ei  He  dies  and  suffers  as  a man,” 

and  gives  the  fullest  evidence  that,  so  far  as  his  ma- 
terial or  corporeal  being  was  concerned,  he  pos- 
sessed a whole  and  perfect  human  nature. 

II.  He  was  man  mentally.  By  this  we  mean 
that  he  had  the  intellectual  nature  of  man,  or,  in 
other  words,  a human  soul.  This  all  Arians  deny. 
While  some  destroy  his  spiritual  nature  altogether, 
others  say  that  the  pre-existeni  nature  occupied  his 
body  as  a soul,  and  there  was  no  human  soul 
whatever.  But  it  is  evident  that  Christ  took  per- 
fect humanity ; a soul  as  well  as  a body,  for, 

1.  The  Scriptures  speak  of  the  soul  of  Christ  as 
in  no  way  differing,  in  its  essential  nature,  from 
the  souls  of  other  men.  Hence  we  read,  u his 
soul  was  not  left  in  hell — -my  soul  is  sorrowful,”  &c. 
It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  Christ  had  a soul,  a term 
never  applied  to  angels  or  to  super-angelic  beings. 

2.  This  soul  had  all  the  attributes,  powers,  and 


32 


HUMANITY  OF  JURIST. 


susceptibilities  of  other  human  souls.  There  is 
not  a single  characteristic  by  which  a human  soul 
may  be  known,  that  is  not  found  in  the  soul  of 
Christ.  He  had  will,  perception,  sensation,  con- 
sciousness, memory,  reason,  love,  joy,  sorrow,  and 
every  thing  by  which  we  may  distinguish  a human 
soul.  We  must  therefore  conclude,  either  that  the 
pre-existent  nature  of  Christ  and  a human  soul  are 
precisely  alike,  or  else  that  he  possessed  a human 
soul.  The  Trinitarian  belief  is,  that  the  intellec- 
tual nature  of  Christ,  which  was  so  precisely  like 
the  soul  of  man,  was  really  and  properly  a human 
soul  in  connection  vnth  the  human  body. 

3.  But  there  are  things  affirmed  of  the  soul  of 
Christ,  that  could  not  be  true  of  his  pre-existent 
nature.  We  have  no  evidence  that  a super-angelic 
being  could  be  “ sorrowful  even  unto  death,”  much 
less  that  it  could  “ increase  in  wisdom”  by  a so- 
journ on  earth,  as  is  affirmed  of  Christ.  Arians 
admit,  that  Christ  had  wisdom  enough  to  create  the 
universe  four  thousand  years  before  his  advent; 
and  yet  the  Scriptures  say,  he  “ increased  in  wis- 
dom” while  on  earth.  Could  that  intellect  which 
was  wise  enough  to  arrange  the  wondrous  ma- 
chinery of  nature,  and  create  seraphim  and  cher- 
ubim, angels  and  men,  grow  wiser  by  visiting  our 
little  world  which  he  had  created  four  thousand 
years  before  ? Could  he  learn  of  men,  whose  in- 
tellectual  powers  he  himself  had  made? 

We  recollect  urging  this  consideration  in  a dis- 
cussion with  an  Arian  minister  several  years  ago. 
In  reply,  it  was  remarked,  that  in  his  advent  to  our 
world,  Christ  laid  aside  or  surrendered  up  his  wis- 
dom ; and  in  proof,  the  passage  was  quoted  in  which 
it  is  said,  “in  his  humiliation  his  judgment  was 
taken  away as  if  judgment  here  meant  knowledge % 


HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST.  33 

Instead  of  justice  or  equity , which  was  denied  him  at 
the  bar  of  Pilate. 

But  such  degrading-  notions  of  Christ  can  never 
grow  out  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Christ 
had  a human  soul  as  well  as  a human  body,  and, 
in  connection  with  these,  a dwelt  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead.”  Hence  in  reference  to  his  human 
soul,  it  could  be  said  he  u increased  in  wisdom;” 
while  of  his  Divinity  it  is  said  he  had  u all  the 
treasures  of  wisdom  and  -knowledge.” 

III.  Christ  was  man  morally.  True  he  had  not 
man’s  depraved  nature ; but  this  is  no  part  of  hu- 
manity itself.  Adam  was  a man  before  he  fell,  and 
Christ  could  be  human,  though  perfectly  holy.  He 
was  a moral  being,  capable  of,  and  subject  to,  moral 
government ; u made  of  a woman,  made  under  the 
law;”  but,  being  pure  like  Adam  in  Eden,  he 
needed  not  to  repent  or  be  regenerated,  nor  will  he 
require  to  be  judged  in  the  day  of  general  judg- 
ment. He  is  therefore  a fit  residence  for  the  Eter- 
nal Word,  who  is  to  come  in  connection  with  his 
immortalized  body  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 
Like  Eve,  before  the  fall,  he  was  tempted;  “yet 
without  sin  ” As  a human  soul  he  had  a God  ,* 
was  dependent  upon  God  ; obeyed  God  ; belonged 
to  God  ; grew  in  favor  with  God ; worshipped  God ; 
prayed  to  God  ; and  ascended  to  God — a human 
soul  and  immortal  bod}/ — the  u first  fruits  of  them 
that  slept” 

IV.  Relationships  are  referred  to  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, as  existing  between  Christ  and  man,  that 
cou.d  not  have  existed  without  proper  humanity. 
Christ  was  “ the  Son  of  God,”  as  it  respects  his  pre- 
existent nature,  (as  the  term  Son  is  already  defined,) 
but  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  u the  Son  of  God,” 
he  was  u the  Son  of  man.”  This  was  a common 


34 


HUMANITY  OP  7HRIST. 


name  for  man.  Ezekiel  is  called  the  “ sou  of  man7, 
about  ninety  times  in  the  Scriptures,  and  our  Lord 
about  eighty-four.  When  God  addresses  Ezekiel 
as  a “ son  of  man,”  this  title  is  understood  to  desig- 
nate his  origin — to  keep  before  the  mind  his  true 
character  and  mortality,  distinguishing  him  from 
the  higher  orders  of  intelligences.  The  relation- 
ship fully  implies  the  humanity  of  Ezekiel.  What 
then  are  we  to  understand  by  the  phrase,  when 
Christ  is  called  the  “ Son  of  man  ?”  Does  it  not 
clearly  imply  Ms  humanity  ? In  what  sense  could 
he  have  been  “the  Son  of  man,”  without  proper 
humanity?  The  same  conclusion  would  follow 
from  the  fact,  that  Christ  was  the  “ Son  of  David,” 
which  he  could  not  have  been  without  real  hu- 
manity. 

V.  Christ  was  known  as  man  by  those  who  lived 
at  the  time  of  his  advent,  and  had  the  best  opportu- 
nity for  obtaining  correct  information  respecting 
him.  Hence  we  read — “ This  man  receiveth  sin- 
ners”— “ never  man  spake  like  this  man” — “ come 
see  the  man  which  told  me  all  things” — “ a man 
that  is  called  Jesus  made  clay” — •“  if  this  man  were 
not  of  God  he  could  do  nothing,”  &c.  It  is  evident, 
from  such  language,  that  he  was  considered  as  pos- 
sessed of  real  humanity,  by  those  who  saw  and  heard 
him. 

VI.  The  inspired  writers  say  Christ  was  man. 
“ Behold  the  man  whose  name  is  the  Branch” — “ a 
man  of  sorrows” — after  me  cometh  a man” — “ but 
this  man  when  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice” — •“  this 
man  hath  an  unchangeable  priesthood” — ■“  a man  ap- 
proved of  God” — “ through  this  man  is  preached 
unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins” — “grace  which  is 
by  one  man  Jesus  Christ” — “ by  man  came  also  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,”  &c.  Now,  if  Christ 


IIUMANITT  OF  CHRIST. 


35 


were  not  in  one  nature  man,  why  do  the  Scriptures 
call  him  so  ? and  what  could  have  been  better  cal- 
culated to  mislead  us,  than  the  use  of  such  language  ? 

V II.  Our  Lord  himself  asserts  his  humanity.  He 
says,  “ Had  I not  done  among  them  the  works  which 
none  other  man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin.”  Again, 
“ Now  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a man  that  hath  told  you 
the  truth.”  Thus  the  Saviour  endorses  the  opinions 
expressed  by  his  Prophets  and  Apostles,  and  by 
others  who  saw  and  heard  him,  by  declaring,  in 
the  most  plain  and  unequivocal  manner,  that  he  was 
“ man  or  that  he  possessed  a human  nature. 

VIII.  Without  humanity  Christ  could  not  have 
made  an  atonement  for  sin.  The  law  was  broken 
by  man,  and  the  penalty  was  due  to  man,  and  must 
fall  upon  humanity,  though  it  might  be  connected 
with  Divinity.  But  Christ  did  make  an  atonement 
for  us.  u The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity 
of  us  all” — •“  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried 
our  sorrows” — ■“  he  was  wounded  for  our  transgres- 
sions”— ■“  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities : the 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him ; and  with 
his  stripes  we  are  healed.”  He  must,  therefore, 
have  been  possessed  of  proper  humanity. 

IX.  According  to  the  law  of  Moses,  (Lev.  xxv. 
25,)  the  redeemer  of  a forfeited  inheritance  must  be 
a relative  or  kinsman.  Now  the  human  family  are 
represented  as  having  forfeited  the  heavenly  inheri- 
tance, and  Christ  comes  forth  as  their  Redeemer.  If, 
then,  the  antitype  answers  to  the  type,  Christ  must 
have  been  our  kinsman  or  relative,  and  consequent- 
ly of  our  nature.  u Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a curse  for  us,” 
and  “he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  us  brethren.” 

X.  Christ  was  “ in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we 
are.” — How  could  this  be  true  without  humanity? 


36 


HUMANITY"  OF  CHRIST. 


There  are  a thousand  temptations  peculiar  to  hu- 
manity alone  ; and,  indeed,  we  know  not  that  any 
other  nature  can  be  tempted  at  all.  We  know  not 
that  devils  or  lost  souls  can  be  tempted ; and  as  to 
the  righteous  dead,  and  holy  angels,  we  have  rea- 
son to  believe  they  are  now  forever  beyond  the 
reach  of  temptation.  If  so,  a super-angelic  being 
certainly  could  not  be  tempted.  But  Christ  was 
a in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are  therefore 
he  must  have  had  a nature  that  could  be  tempted, 
or,  in  other  words,  he  must  have  had  a human  na- 
ture. 

XI.  It  was  necessary  that  Christ  should  possess 
perfect  humanity,  in  order  to  demonstrate,  in  his 
own  person,  the  possibility  of  human  resurrection. 
In  the  15th  chapter  of  First  Corinthians,  Paul  ar- 
gues the  general  resurrection  of  the  human  family, 
from  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  Now,  on  the  sup- 
position that  Christ  had  not  perfect  humanity,  no- 
thing could  have  been  more  fallacious  than  the 
Apostle’s  argument.  If  he  had  but  one  nature,  and 
that  nature  was  above  angels,  it  was  sophistical  in 
the  extreme  to  refer  to  him  as  a specimen  of  human 
resurrection  ; as  his  resurrection  furnishes  no  proof 
whatever  that  any  human  being  ever  has  risen,  or 
ever  will  arise  from  the  dead.  Had  there  been 
Arians  at  Corinth,  they  might  have  replied,  “We 
know  that  Christ  rose,  but  he  was  super-angelic, 
and  had  no  human  nature  ; therefore,  his  resurrec- 
tion is  no  proof  that  human  beings  will,  or  can 
arise.” 

But  the  Apostle  considered  him  a true  specimen 
of  human  resurrection — a pledge  and  proof  of  the 
resurrection  of  all  men.  He  must,  therefore,  have 
possessed  perfect  humanity.  Again  ; Paul  speaks  of 
Christ,  as  “ the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept.”  The 


HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST. 


37 


a first  fruits,”  literally,  consisted  of  the  first  ripe 
fruits,  or  grain,  that  was  gathered  from  the  ap- 
proaching vintage  or  harvest ; and  was  presented 
as  a thank-offering  to  the  Lord.  They  were  of 
course  of  the  same  nature  of  the  harvest  that  was  to 
follow.  Now  Christ  is  the  “ first-fruits  of  them  that 
slept,”  and  the  harvest  that  is  to  follow  is  the  gene- 
ral resurrection.  But  if  Christ  had  not  a human 
nature,  nothing  could  have  been  more  unfortunate 
than  the  Apostle’s  metaphor.  Could  the  u first 
fruits”  he  of  one  nature,  and  the  harvest  of  another  ? 
Could  Christ  be  the  first-fruits  from  the  dead,  un- 
less he  had  the  same  nature  of  the  dead  ? It  is  evi- 
dent, therefore,  that  he  was  man  as  well  as  God,  and 
in  that  humanity  he  entered  the  tomb,  conquered 
death  in  his  own  dominions,  and  u triumphed  o’er 
the  grave.” 

“ Then  first  humanity  triumphant, 

Passed  the  crystal  ports  of  light, 

And  seized  eternal  youth.” 

XII.  We  might  argue  the  humanity  of  Christ 
from  his  character  as  Mediator; — from  the  fact 
that  he  is  our  'pattern  or  example ; and  from  various 
other  considerations;  but  if  the  above  arguments 
fail  to  establish  the  truth,  it  would  be  useless  to  add 
others.  We  have  shown  that  he  was  man,  corpo- 
really, mentally , and  morally.  W e have  also  proved 
his  humanity  from  the  fact,  that  he  was  the  u son  of 
man”  and  the  “son  of  David.”  He  was  known  as 
man  by  those  best  acquainted  with  him  while  on 
earth — called  a man  by  the  Prophets  and  Apostles 
— calls  himself  a man — suffered  the  penalty  of  the 
law  due  only  to  man — is  our  Redeemer,  and  there- 
fore our  relative  and  brother — was  tempted  as  none 
but  men  could  be  tempted — and  is  adduced  by  St. 
4 


38 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


Paul  as  a specimen  and  proof  of  human  resurrec- 
tion. W e are  constrained,  therefore,  to  believe  that 
he  had  a whole  and  ‘perfect  human  nature,  and  to 
adopt  the  sentiment  of  1 Tim.  ii.  5. — “ There  is  one 
God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the 
man  Christ  Jesus.” 


CHAPTER  VI 

DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 

Having  shown  that  Jesus  Christ  is  really  and 
properly  man,  possessing  a whole  and  perfect  hu- 
man nature,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  prove  that  he 
is  verily  and  really  God.  On  this  point  we  wish  to 
be  very  plain  and  explicit.  When  we  say  that 
Christ  is  God,  we  do  not  mean  that  his  humanity  is 
God,  or  that  flesh  and  bones  are  Divinity ; but  that 
in  union  with  the  human  body  and  soul  of  Christ, 
there  existed  the  eternal  “Word;”  the  second  per- 
son in  the  Godhead  ; of  the  same  substance,  power, 
and  eternity  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Hence  when  we  say  that  Christ  is  God,  we  refer 
solely  to  his  pre-existent  nature. 

Neither  do  we  consider  him  a created  and  finite, 
a subordinate  God,  as  do  Arians  ; but  the  Supreme 
Being : Jehovah  ; the  Creator  and  Sovereign  of  the 
Universe.  On  these  points  we  have  often  been 
misrepresented.  Arians  have  charged  us  with  be- 
lieving that  Christ’s  humanity  was  Divine,  and 
have  then  urged  that  according  to  Trinitarians,  God 
was  born,  carried  down  into  Egypt,  baptized  by 
John,  &c.  This  argumer.,  may  be  found  in  almost 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


39 


every  Arian  work,  and  is  very  popular  with  Arian 
preachers. 

Now,  if  we  asserted  that  Christ  had  but  one  na- 
ture, which  nature  was  Divine  ; or  that  having  two 
natures  his  humanity  was  Divine  ; the  above  ob- 
jection would  be  valid.  But  if,  as  we  constantly 
maintain,  Christ  had  two  natures,  humanity  and 
Divinity,  then  the  former  could  be  born,  carried 
into  Egypt,  baptized  and  crucified,  without  predi- 
cating any  of  these  of  Divinity. 

Although  we  have  already  stated  the  Arian  doc- 
trine in  a summary  manner  on  page  12,  it  may  be 
important  more  fully  to  set  forth  their  views  of  the 
origin  and  character  of  Christ  in  the  present  con- 
nection. In  so  doing  they  will  be  allowed  to  speak 
for  themselves.  Kinkade  says,  “ the  Mediator  is 
ten  thousand  times  greater  than  all  the  men  on 
earth  and  all  the  angels  in  heaven,  and  the  next 
greatest  being  in  the  universe  to  God  the  Father” — 
p.  38.  “I  think  Christ  a created  being ” — p.  133. 
u The  plain  truth  is,  that  the  pre-existent  Christ 
was  the  first  creature  that  was  born  into  existence” 
— p.  117.  “ He  is  God’s  Son,  not  in  the  sense  that 

Isaac  was  the  son  of  Abraham,  bnt  in  the  sense 
that  Adam  was  the  son  of  God.”  Here  it  will  be 
perceived  that  Mr.  K.  is  endeavoring  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  Christ,  as  well  as  to  determine  his  rel- 
ative dignity  and  true  character  ; and  in  this  effort 
he  asserts  that  he  came  into  being  in  two  ways — 
by  creation  and  by  birth.  If  he  had  said  that  God 
the  Father  created  Christ  before  the  world  began, 
and  left  the  matter  there,  we  should  all  have  under- 
stood him ; but  when  he  talks  of  the  pre-existent 
nature  of  Christ  as  having  been  “born  into  exist- 
ence,” we  know  not  what  he  means.  Does  he 
really  think  the  pre-existent  nature  of  Christ  was 


40 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


“ born ” in  heaven,  before  the  world  began  ? Is  this 
what  Arians  mean,  when  they  assert  that  Christ 
was  “ brought  forth,”  or  that  he  was  a “ natural 
son,”  before  time  began  ? This  seems  to  be  the 
fact.  They  think  he  has  but  one  nature,  super- 
human and  super-angelic,  and  before  men  or  an- 
gels ; but  that  he  is,  after  all,  but  a creature ; and 
that  he  originated  by  being  “brought  forth”  or 
“ born  into  existence,”  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world. 

If  the  reader  should  suspect  a distinction  between 
creation  and  birth,  he  must  look  to  the  Arian  phi- 
losophy to  unlock  the  “ mystery.”  Trinitarianism 
furnishes  no  key  to  it.  On  the  other  hand,  this 
singular  theory  involves  us  in  a labyrinth  of  diffi- 
culties. Birth  always  implies  parents  and  natural 
generation , (the  conception  of  the  virgin  Mary  ex- 
cepted,) hence  to  say  that  the  pre-existent  nature  of 
Christ  was  “ born”  in  heaven  before  the  creation 
of  the  world,  would  be  to  assert  by  implication  that 
there  is  a family  of  Divinities  in  heaven — Father, 
Mother,  and  Son ! This  we  should  call  Poly- 
theism. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  “ Do  they  not  hold  to  the 
Divinity  of  Christ  ? They  say  that  they  do,  nay 
more,  that  they  believe  him  to  be  all-Divine .” 
Very  true,  and  yet  they  deny  the  proper  Divinity 
of  Christ.  They  use  the  term  “ divine ” in  an  ac- 
commodated sense,  as  we  call  a sound  theologian  a 
divine  ; or  merely  to  signify  purity  or  holiness  ; but 
when  the  question  of  Christ’s  proper  Deity  is  pro- 
posed, they  steadfastly  deny  him  this  honor.  They 
use  the  term  divine,  as  they  apply  it  to  Christ,  to 
signify  something  falling  infinitely  short  of  the 
Godhead — something  finite,  inferior,  and  dependent. 
In  this  sense  only  do  they  admit  the  Divinity  of 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


41 


Christ.  But  to  return.  The  princip.  i arguments 
in  favor  of  the  Arian  scheme,  are  drawn  from  Col. 
i.  15,  and  Rev.  iii.  15.  In  one  of  these  passages, 
Christ  is  called  “ the  first-born  of  every  creature 
and  in  the  other,  “ the  beginning  of  the  creation 
of  God.”  From  these  it  is  inferred,  that  Christ 
must  have  been  created.  When  it  is  shown  that 
Christ  is  both  man  and  God,  from  the  general  lan- 
guage of  the  Scriptures,  the  reply  is,  “ he  is  called 
man,  but  he  was  not  really  man ; he  is  called  God,” 
&c.  ; but,  when  only  two  passages  are  to  be  found 
in  all  the  Bible,  that  speak  of  Christ  as  a creature, 
the  evidence  is  considered  conclusive.  Suppose  he 
was  plainly  called  a creature,  (which  is  not  the  case 
in  either  of  the  above  texts,)  would  it  be  certain, 
therefore,  that  he  was  literally  created  ? The  lan- 
guage is  figurative  : and  the  import  of  both  texts  is 
the  same.  The  “ first-born”  among  the  Jews  were 
considered  as  superior ; and  were  entitled  to  privi- 
leges which  others  had  not.  Hence,  in  figurative 
language,  the  terms  u first-born”  or  “ beginning” 
would  often  be  used  as  a title  of  superiority , and  in 
this  sense  was  applied  to  God  himself.  The  Jews 
term  Jehovah  becovo  shel  olam:  the  first-born  of  all  the 
world , or  of  all  the  creation ; to  signify  his  having 
created  or  produced  all  things.  In  the  same  sense 
Christ  is  called  u the  first-born  of  every  creature,” 
u the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God,”  to  sig- 
nify his  superiority ; and  to  point  him  out  as  the 
pre-existent  and  eternal  Author  of  all  things. 
Hence  it  is  said,  u he  is  before  all  things,  and  by 
him  all  things  consist.”  Again — It  is  a well 

known  principle  in  the  interpretation  of  any  writ- 
ten document,  that  if  a sentence  seems  to  conflict 
with  the  general  tenor,  it  must  be  so  understood,  as 
to  harmonize  with  the  main  design.  The  same 
4* 


42 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


rule  must  be  respected  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures.  If  then,  there  are  two  passages  that 
seem  to  represent  Christ  as  a creature,  and  two  hun- 
dred that  represent  him  as  t]re  uncreated  Word,  the 
Creator  of  all  things ; we  must  interpret  the  few  so 
that  they  will  agree  with  the  many.  On  this  prin- 
ciple we  must  either  understand  the  above  texts  as 
we  have  explained  them,  or  set  aside  scores  of 
others  that  assert  his  proper  Divinity.  We  are 
obliged,  therefore,  to  reject  the  notion  that  Christ  is 
a creature,  not  only  because  there  are  but  two  pas- 
sages that  seem  to  favor  it,  but  because  those  pas- 
sages are  figurative ; are  easily  interpreted  differ- 
ently, and  must  be  so  interpreted,  or  contradict  more 
than  two  hundred  other  passages,  some  of  which 
we  shall  presently  adduce. 

In  establishing  the  supreme  Divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  it  will  be  necessary  to  pursue,  to  a great  ex- 
tent, the  usual  course.  The  attributes  predicated 
of  him  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  are  the  best  evidence 
of  his  Divinity.  Our  knowledge  of  things  in  the 
natural  world  is  confined  to  their  qualities.  We 
can  discover  a difference  between  marble  and  silver, 
not  because  we  see  a difference  in  their  essence, 
but  from  a difference  in  their  attributes,  such  as 
weight,  hardness,  color,  &c.  For  example,  if  two 
pieces  of  metal  are  put  into  our  hand,  in  order  that 
we  may  tell  what  they  are,  we  feel  their  weight 
or  hardness,  look  at  their  color,  perhaps  heat  them 
or  hammer  them  to  develope  their  qualities,  and 
then  judge.  When  we  find  a substance  that  pos- 
sesses all  the  attributes  of  gold,  and  no  others,  we 
identify  it  as  gold  ; and  the  evidence  arising  from 
the  presence  of  those  attributes,  has  all  the  strength 
of  demonstration.  What  we  have  said  of  this  evi- 
dence, as  it  respects  material  things,  is  equally  true 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


43 


in  the  universe  of  mind.  We  know  nothing  of 
spiritual  beings  beyond  their  attributes.  Of  their 
essence  we  are  totally  ignorant.  Conformably  to 
the  same  principle  God  has  revealed  himself  to 
man.  Of  his  essence  as  a spirit  we  know  nothing ; 
but  the  Scriptures  attribute  to  him  certain  properties , 
or  qualities , usually  called  attributes , which  belong 
to  him  alone,  and  distinguish  him  from  all  other 
beings.  By  these  attributes  or  perfections  we  be- 
come, to  some  extent,  acquainted  with  his  nature. 
Were  there  no  essential  attributes  which  distin- 
guish the  Divine  Being  from  every  thing  else, 
there  could  be  no  God,  or  if  there  were,  we  should 
be  unable  to  distinguish  him  from  the  works  of 
his  hands.  If,  then,  we  find  from  the  Scriptures 
that  certain  attributes  belong  to  God,  and  to  him 
only,  and  at  the  same  time  find  that  all  these  attri- 
butes belong  to  Christ,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible, 
that  Christ  and  God  are  one  Being.  Arians  are 
aware  of  the  conclusiveness  of  this  method  of  rea- 
soning, hence  they  labor  to  show,  either  that  the 
attributes  of  God  do  not  belong  to  him  alone,  or  if 
they  do,  that  they  are  not  found  in  Jesus  Christ. 
They  tell  us  that  two  beings  may  have  “ all  power” 
or  omnipotence  at  the  same  time ; that  omnipres- 
ence belongs  even  to  the  Devil,  and  is  not  peculiar 
to  God ; and  that  neither  omniscience  or  eternity  be- 
long to  Christ  at  all. 

All  these  points  will  be  duly  considered  as  we 
proceed.  For  the  present  we  wish  only  to  show 
the  principle  on  which  we  conduct  our  reasoning 
upon  the  attributes  of  Christ — a principle  which 
will  lead  us  infallibly  to  the  truth  in  all  our  re- 
searches, whether  in  the  material  or  spiritual  world. 

There  are  certain  attributes  which  belong  to  God 
only,  To  deny  this,  would  be  to  contradict  both 


44 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


philosophy  and  revelation.  Now  we  affirm  that 
the  same  attributes  that  belong  solely  to  the  Su- 
preme Being,  are  found  also  in  Jesus  Christ.  If 
these  two  points  can  be  established,  the  Deity  of 
Christ  must  necessarily  follow. 

I.  God  is  a Spirit  without  body  or  parts. 
This  is  denied  by  Arians  generally.  Most  of  them 
believe  there  are  two  bodies  in  Heaven,  namely, 
the  body  of  God,  and  the  body  of  Christ — that 
God  is  literally  seated  on  a throne,  and  that  Christ 
sits  at  his  right  hand.  Kinkade  has  a chapter  of 
fifteen  pages,  to  show  that  God  has  a body  like 
man.  Chadwick  says  he  is  iC  prepared  to  defend17 
this  sentiment ; and  Elder  G.  Fancher  says,  “ God 
has  a body,  eyes,  ears,  hands,  feet,  &c.,  just  as  we 
have.’7  Millard  evidently  holds  to  the  same  creed, 
and  Elder  L.  Perry  says,  in  a letter  in  our  posses- 
sion, “ I believe  he  is  a body,  sir.77  Kinkade  says, 
“ ears,  hands,  and  eyes,  are  part  of  an  intelligent 
ruler,  and  if  God  have  none  of  these  he  cannot 
hear,  handle,  nor  see  us.77 

To  show  that  God  has  “ nearly  all  the  members 
of  the  human  body,77  he  quotes  the  following  texts : 
— ■“  The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  upon  the  righteous, 
and  his  ears  are  open  unto  them  that  cry.  The 
face  of  the  Lord  is  against  them  that  do  evil.  I 
will  turn  my  hand  upon  thee.  He  shall  gather 
the  lambs  with  his  arm , and  carry  them  in  his  bo- 
som. His  garment  was  white  as  snow,  and  the  hair 
of  his  head  like  the  fine  wool ; his  throne  was  like 
the  fiery  flame  and  his  wheels  as  burning  fire.77 
From  these  it  is  inferred  that  God  has  eyes,  ears, 
face,  hands,  arms,  bosom,  garments  or  clothing, 
head,  hair,  &c.  But  if  these  texts  are  to  be  under- 
stood literally,  we  must  not  stop  here.  We  must 
not  only  represent  God  as  resembling  an  aged  man 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


45 


but  as  actually  riding  in  a carriage,  and  gathering 
the  lambs  in  his  bosom  ! Instead  of  understanding 
figurative  language  as  such,  Arians  make  it  all 
literal ; and  thus  originate  some  of  the  most  absurd 
notions,  that  were  ever  uttered  in  any  Christian 
land. 

In  figurative  language  the  eye  sometimes  de- 
notes wisdom,  or  providential  care,  the  ear  atten- 
tion, and  the  hand  strength  ; but  if  we  were  to 
speak  of  “ the  strong  arm  of  the  law”  in  the  hearing 
of  an  Arian,  he  might  infer  that  the  law  had  an 
arm,  and  perhaps  “ nearly  all  the  members  of  the 
human  body.”  This  theory  represents  God  as  in- 
capable of  seeing  or  hearing  without  the  medium 
of  ears  and  eyes  ! But  does  sound  go  from  earth 
to  heaven  ? and  does  God  hear  a secret  prayer  with 
natural  ears,  and  a thousand  of  them  at  the  same 
time  ? If  God  sees  with  natural  eyes,  can  he  see 
all  around  him  or  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  earth  ? 
It  may  be  wrong  to  dwell  upon  such  palpable  non- 
sense, and  we  drop  the  subject  by  briefly  stating 
two  objections  to  the  Arian  sentiment. 

1.  To  give  God  a body  is  to  contradict  one  of  the 
plainest  declarations  of  the  word  of  God.  Christ 
says,  “ God  is  a spirit,”  and  “ a spirit  hath  not  flesh 
and  bones.”  Now,  if  a spirit  hath  not  flesh  and 
bones,  of  course  it  can  have  no  eyes,  ears,  hands, 
or  feet,  or  any  members  or  parts  of  a material  body. 
By  body  we  always  understand  matter  in  some  form, 
as  opposed  to  spirit.  The  term  is  applicable  to  no- 
thing but  matter  ; therefore  if  God  is  a spirit,  he 
cannot  be  matter ; and  consequently  has  no  body 
or  parts.  On  the  other  hand,  to  assert  that  God 
“ is  a body,”  is  to  make  out  a material  God,  and  to 
deny  that  God  is  a spirit.  Hence  this  feature  of 
modem  Arianism,  is  no  better  than  Atheism.  But 


46 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


Arians  tell  us  that  God’s  body  is  a “ spiritual  body  ” 
by  which  they  mean  a sort  of  body  that  is  nothing 
but  spirit  after  all.  This  is  an  unscriptural  inven- 
tion. A spiritual  body  is  a human  body  immor- 
talized. Hence  it  is  said  of  the  human  body,  u It 
is  sown  a natural  body,  it  is  raised  a spiritual  body” 
— 1 Cor.  xv.  44.  The  material  body  of  Christ 
was,  therefore,  a spiritual  body  after  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  yet  it  had  flesh  and  bones,  and  was  matter 
as  much  as  it  was  before.  All  bodies  will  be  spi- 
ritual after  the  resurrection,  and  yet  they  will  all 
be  material.  It  is  useless,  therefore,  to  assert  that 
God’s  body  is  a spiritual  body,  for  if  this  be  true 
he  must  be  matter  and  not  spirit,  and  Christ  must 
stand  corrected  by  Arians. 

2.  To  give  God  a body  is  to  deny  his  omnipresence. 
Hence  Arians  generally  follow  Kinkade,  and  deny 
that  God  is  every  where  present.  He  is  very  frank 
in  the  avowal  of  this  doctrine,  as  may  be  seen  by 
consulting  his  book,  p.  157.  If  God  is  a body,  of 
course  he  cannot  be  every  where  present.  It  can- 
not, -therefore,  be  true  that  he  u fills  heaven  and 
earth,”  as  he  has  declared  ; — that  “ jn  him  we  live, 
move,  and  have  our  being or  that  he  “ filleth  all 
in  all.”  We  must,  then,  either  disbelieve  those 
Scriptures  that  ascribe  universal  presence  to  God,  or 
reject  the  notion  of  a material  Deity.  We  prefer 
the  latter.  God  is  revealed  to  us  as  an  omnipresent 
God  ; and,  as  before  said,  any  theory  that  robs  him 
of  his  spiritual  nature,  and  consequently  of  his  at- 
tributes, is  no  better  than  Atheism  itself.  u God  is 
pure  spirit,  unconnected  with  bodily  form  or  organs, 
the  invisible  God  whom  no  man  hath  seen  or  can 
see,  an  immaterial,  incorruptible  substance,  an  im- 
mense mind , or  intelligence,  self-acting,  self-moving, 
wholly  above  the  perceptions  of  bodily  sense,  free 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


47 


from  the  imperfections  of  matter,  and  all  the  infirmi- 
ties of  corporeal  beings,  far  more  excellent  than  any 
finite  and  created  spirits,  and  therefore  styled  “ the 
Father  of  spirits,”  “ the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh.” 

If  God  is  a spirit,  he  is  not  matter  or  body,  and 
consequently  has  no  parts.  Nothing  can  have  parts 
that  is  not  susceptible  of  division  ; for  a part  is  such 
only  in  reference  to  a whole  of  which  it  is  a part ; 
and  always  implies  divisibility.  Spirit  is  not  divisi- 
ble, and  consequently  has  no  parts.  Hence  we 
never  speak  of  half  a spirit,  half  a joy,  or  half  a 
sorrow.  If,  then,  u God  is  a spirit,”  he  is  necessa- 
rily incapable  of  division,  and  must  be  66  without 
body  or  parts.” 

II.  God  is  the  real  and  only  Creator.  The 
Scriptures  ascribe  the  work  of  creation  to  God  and 
to  Christ ; and  from  this  we  argue  that  Christ  is 
God,  u manifest  in  the  flesh.”  Arians  are  therefore 
obliged  to  deny  the  work  of  creation  to  one  or  the 
other  of  these,  or  to  admit  Christ’s  Divinity.  Ac- 
cordingly they  usually  assert  that  the  Father  never 
created  any  thing,  except  the  Son  ; and  that  Christ 
created  all  things  as  God’s  representative  or  agent. 
It  will  be  necessary,  therefore,  to  show,  in  the  first 
place,  that  God  is  the  real  and  only  Creator. 

1.  Moses  says,  u In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.”  David  says,  u The 
heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firma- 
ment sheweth  his  handy  work” — that  the  heavens 
are  u the  work  of  his  fingers.”  Paul  says,  “ He 
that  built  all  things  is  God — the  living  God  that 
made  heaven,  and  earth,  and  sea,  and  all  things 
therein.” 

The  whole  account  of  creation  clearly  shews  that 
God  alone  is  the  Creator.  a And  God  said,  Let 
there  be  light : and  there  was  light.”  “ He  spake, 


48 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


and  it  was  done.”  “ And  God  said,  Let  the  earth 
bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind,  cattle, 
and  creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his 
kind : and  it  was  so.”  “ And  on  the  seventh  day 
God  ended  his  work  which  he  had  made ; and  he 
rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work  which 
he  had  made . And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day, 
and  sanctified  it ; because  that  in  it  he  had  rested 
from  all  his  work  which  God  created  and  made" 
Who  would  suppose,  from  this  account,  that  an  in- 
ferior being,  altogether  distinct  from  God,  was  the 
true  Creator? 

2.  But  at  the  same  time  that  the  Scriptures  teach 
that  God,  and  God  alone,  is  the  Creator  of  all  things, 
they  teach  that  Christ  created  all  things.  “ All  things 
were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  any- 
thing made  that  was  made.”  “ For  by  him  were  all 
things  created  that  are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in 
earth,  visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones, 
or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or  powers  : all  things 
were  created  by  him,  and  for  him.  And  he  is  be- 
fore all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist.” 
Now,  as  the  Scriptures  teach  that  God  created  all 
things  himself,  and  yet  affirm  that  Christ  created 
all  things,  it  follows  that  Christ  is  the  God  spoken 
of  by  Moses,  “ manifest  in  the  flesh.” 

3.  In  reply  to  this  argument,  it  is  asserted,  as 
above  stated,  that  Christ,  a creature,  created  all 
things  as  u God’s  agent;"  and  hence,  that  God  and 
Christ  may  both  be  considered  as  Creators,  God  as 
the  principal,  and  Christ  as  the  agent.  But  this 
agency  scheme  is  liable  to  the  following  objec- 
tions : — 

(1.)  There  is  not  the  least  vestige  of  any  such 
doctrine  in  all  the  Bible. 

(2.)  It  directly  contradicts  the  account  of  creation 


DEITY  OF  .HRIST. 


49 


as  given  by  Moses  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  Here 
the  work  of  creation  is  attributed  to  God  alone, 
without  any  reference  to  a finite  and  created  agent. 

(3.)  If  Christ  created  all  things  as  God’s  agent, 
then  God  is  not  in  reality  the  Creator  ; for  he  never 
created  anything.  We  shall  then  be  bound  to  the 
conclusion,  that  God  “ said”  by  an  agent,  “ saw” 
by  an  agent,  “blessed”  by  an  agent,  talked  to 
Adam  and  Eve  by  an  agent,  and,  to  cap  the  climax, 
that  he  “ rested”  on  the  seventh  day,  because  his 
agent  had  finished  his  work  ; or,  worse  still,  that 
he  rested  by  an  agent.  Absurd  as  this  may  seem, 
it  necessarily  follows  if  the  agency  scheme  be  true  , 
and  the  work  of  creation  was  the  work  of  a crea- 
ture, and  not  the  work  of  God.  Of  course,  then, 
God  did  not  create  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and 
is  not  in  reality  the  Creator  of  all  things. 

(4.)  A being  that  can  create  a spire  of  grass,  can 
have  no  limit  to  his  power.  Now,  if  God  has  an 
agent  who  created  the  material  universe,  and  all  the 
angels  of  light,  he  is  of  course,  omnipotent,  and 
there  are  two  beings  of  infinite  power.  But  this  is 
impossible  ; and  we  are  obliged  to  conclude,  that 
Christ  is  not  an  agent,  but  the  omnipotent  God 
himself,  the  Creator  of  all  things. 

(5.)  If  Christ  created  all  things  as  God’s  agent, 
he  must  have  created  them  for  God  ; as  an  agent 
never  transacts  business  for  himself,  but  for  his  em- 
ployer. But  the  Scriptures  declare,  that  “ all  things 
were  made  by  him  and  for  himf  therefore  he  could 
not  have  been  an  agent  creating  for  another. 

(6.)  This  agency  scheme  represents  Christ  as 
creating  himself.  True,  Kinkade  says,  “ he  is  per- 
haps the  only  being  that  God  ever  made  without 
doing  it-  ithrough  an  agent  or  instrument,”  but 
this  “ perhaps”  theory  does  not  do  away  the  logi- 
5 


50 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


cal  consequence  of  the  agency  scheme.  Other 
Arians,  much  wiser  than  Kinkade,  endorse  the 
whole  system,  and  deny  that  God  can  create  with- 
out an  agent.  Rev.  L.  Perry  says,  “for  God  to 
work  without  means  is  contrary  to  the  known  laws 
of  his  operations.”  According  to  this  plan,  then, 
Christ  must  have  been  created  first,  to  act  as  God’s 
agent  in  creating  the  rest.  But  God  cannot  work 
“ without  means”  by  which  Mr.  P.  means  an  agent, 
and  yet  there  was  no  agent.  Who  then  created 
Christ  ? God  had  no  “ means”  and  could  not  “work 
without  them therefore,  God  did  not  create  him. 
If,  then,  he  was  created  at  all,  he  must  have  created 
himself. 

On  the  supposition  that  Christ  was  a creature, 
we  can  prove  from  the  Scriptures  that  he  created 
himself.  It  is  said,  “ All  things  were  made  by  him, 
and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was 
made.”  Now,  if  Christ  is  a “ thing,”  or  creature, 
he  must  have  been  made  by  himself ; for  “ all  things 
were  made  by  him.”  Again — “ Without  him  was 
not  anything  made  that  was  made.”  But  if  Christ 
was  “ made,”  as  Kinkade  affirms,  he  was  made  by 
the  power  of  Christ,  for  this  text  says,  nothing  that 
was  made  was  made  without  him.  If,  then,  he  was 
made  at  all,  he  made  himself.  But  as  this  is  im- 
possible, we  must  conclude  that  the  agency  scheme 
is  imaginary,  and  that  Christ  the  “ Word,”  was 
never  made,  but  is  the  eternal  and  infinite  Crea- 
tor. 

(7.)  Christ  is  represented  as  “upholding  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  power,”  and  we  are  told, 
that  “by  him  all  things  consist.”  Now,  Arianism 
teaches,  that  Christ  is  God’s  agent;  has  but  one  na- 
ture ; and  that  the  whole  of  that  nature  actually 
died  and  was  buried.  Who  then  upheld  all  things 


i 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


51 


while  the  agent  was  dead  ? Were  the  affairs  of  the 
universe  managed  by  a dead  being,  confined  in  the 
tomb  of  Joseph  'l  If  it  be  said  that  God  took  the 
helm  of  government  while  the  agent  was  dead,  then 
government  and  preservation  have  been  shifted 
from  Christ  to  God,  and  back  again  to  Christ  j and 
God  has  been  at  work  without  an  agent.  If  neither 
held  the  reins,  then  chance  is  as  good  as  direction, 
and  the  strongest  arguments  against  Atheism  are 
overthrown.  Such  are  the  absurdities  of  error.  The 
difficulties  of  the  Arian  creed  have  given  birth  to  a 
scheme  which  throws  the  infinite  Jehovah  into  the 
background,  and  ascribes  the  glory  of  creation  to  a 
finite  creature  ; — a creature  that  was  mortal  and 
actually  died ! We  have  no  way  to  avoid  the  con- 
tradictions and  absurdities  of  this  modern  invention, 
but  to  adhere  closely  to  the  old-fashioned  and  scrip- 
tural doctrine,  that  “ In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.” 

4.  We  hold,  with  Moses,  that  God  created  all 
things,  and  with  John  and  Paul,  that  Christ  created 
all  things.  But  instead  of  making  one  the  princi- 
pal, and  the  other  an  agent,  we  believe  the  “ God” 
of  Moses,  and  the  66  Word  ” of  John,  are  the  same 
Being ; for  Paul  says,  “ God  was  manifest  in  the 
flesh,”  and  John  says,  “ the  Word  was  God.”  This 
doctrine  agrees  with  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  ; 
harmonizes  with  the  New  Testament  account ; as- 
cribes the  glory  of  creation  to  God,  to  whom  it  be- 
longs ; and  instead  of  making  Christ  a finite  Mor- 
tal, who,  after  having  created  himself,  created  the 
universe,  gives  him  his  true  scriptural  character, 
as  “ the  true  God  and  eternal  life.”  The  sum  of 
the  entire  argument  is  this  : God  created  all  things 
absolutely  and  alone ; but  the  pre-existent  Word, 


UWWW 

DHWEBSITY  OF  ILUHOI8 
URBAN* 


52 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


or  Christ,  created  all  things,  not  as  an  agent,  but  for 
himself;  therefore,  the  Word,  or  Christ,  is  God. 

III.  The  Deity  of  Christ  follows  from  the 

FACT  THAT  HE  IS  THE  ETERNAL  BEING. 

1.  God , and  God  only , is  eternal.  He  declares 
that  he  is  “ the  first  and  the  last,”  and  is  styled 
“ the  high  and  lofty  One  that  inhabiteth  eternity.” 
He  fills  the  whole  round  of  boundless  duration,  be- 
ing unoriginated,  and  without  beginning  or  end. 
None  but  Atheists  will  deny  this  doctrine.  It 
is  equally  true  that  no  being  but  God  is  eternal ; as 
all  creatures  had  a beginning,  and  consequently 
did  not  exist  before  that  beginning.  If,  then,  it  can 
be  shown,  that  Christ  is  eternal,  it  cannot  but  be 
true  that  he  is  verily  and  really  God.  This  is  one 
of  the  most  difficult  points  Arians  have  to  manage. 
We  have  heard  the  same  persons  say  he  was  nei- 
ther created  or  eternal.  Most  Arians  are  afraid  to 
say  whether  he  had  a beginning  or  not.  Some  ad- 
mit the  eternity  of  Christ,  and  yet  deny  his  proper 
Divinity.  Elder  O.  E.  Morrel  says,  “he  is  of  the 
same  eternal  nature  and  essence  with  the  Father,” 
and  yet  he  believes  he  is  no  more  Divine,  properly 
speaxing,  than  an  angel  or  a man.  Mr.  Perry  also 
says,  “ he  is  not  created,”  and  yet  denies  that  he  is 
Eternal,  or  truly  Divine.  Leaving  these  teachers 
to  agree  among  themselves,  if  they  can,  we  shall 
proceed  to  prove  the  eternity  of  Christ. 

1.  In  one  nature  Christ  existed  before  the  time 
of  his  advent.  John  says,  “ He  was  before  me,” 
and  yet  John  was  born  six  months  before  the 
humanity  of  Christ.  Paul  says,  “Neither  let  us 
tempt  Christ  as  they  also  tempted  ;”  but  this  temp- 
tation was  1,400  years  before  Christ  came  in  the 
flesh.  Christ  says,  “ Before  Abraham  was,  I am  ;” 
and  speaks  or  the  glory  he  had  with  the  Father, 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


53 


{C  before  the  world  began?  These  sayings  cannot  be 
true  of  the  humanity  of  Christ,  for  that  did  not  ex- 
ist before  creation,  before  Abraham  or  Moses,  or 
even  before  John.  There  must,  therefore,  have  been 
another  and  a distinct  nature  that  did  exist  “ in  the 
beginning.”  Most  Arians  admit  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ ; but  instead  of  holding  to  two  natures, 
they  hold  that  the  pre-existent  Word  was  made 
flesh,  not  by  being  clothed  with  humanity,  but  by 
actual  change  of  substance ; the  Spirit  becoming 
flesh,  being  born,  dying,  &c. 

We  have  already  noticed  this  theory  in  Chapter 
V.,  but  we  may  here  add,  (1.)  That  the  Scriptures 
plainly  shew  in  what  sense  u the  Word  was  made 
flesh  namely,  that  “ he  took  on  him  the  seed  of 
Abraham.”  (2.)  It  is  not  possible  for  a spirit  to  be- 
come matter  and  die.  It  is  therefore  certain,  that 
no  such  transformation  ever  took  place,  and  that 
Christ’s  Divinity  existed  before  the  world  began, 
and  is  entirely  distinct  from  his  humanity. 

2.  Christ  says,  u I am  the  first  and  the  last.”  If 
he  was  the  first,  there  was  no  being  in  existence  be- 
fore him.  He  is  consequently  the  oldest  of  all 
beings,  and  must  be  eternal.  But  the  Father  says, 
(Isa.  xliv.  40,)  “ I am  the  first,”  &c.  God  says  he  is 
the  first,  and  Christ  says  he  is  the  first ; and,  as  they 
cannot  both  be  first  as  two  distinct  beings,  they 
must  be  merely  distinct  persons  in  the  same  eternal 
Being  or  Godhead. 

3.  The  Prophet  Micah  says  of  Christ,  “ His  go- 
ings forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting,” 
or  u from  the  days  of  eternity.”  Paul  says,  “ he  is 
before  all  things” — “ the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and 
forever.”  John  says,  “ In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word.”  If  he  was  in  the  beginning,  he  must 
have  existed  before  the  beginning ; if  before'  the 

5* 


54 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


beginning,  he  must  have  been  without  beginning, 
and  that  which  is  without  beginning  must  be 
eternal.  Christ  must  therefore  be  eternal. 

4.  To  deny  the  eternity  of  the  Son,  would  be  to 
deny  the  eternity  of  the  Father.  One  relation  can 
be  no  older  than  the  other.  If  there  was  a time 
when  the  Son  did  not  exist,  there  was  no  Father  ht 
that  time  ; as  the  Father  is  such  only  in  reference 
to  the  Son.  The  Father  was  not  the  Father  be- 
fore the  Son  existed  ; therefore,  if  the  Son  is  not 
eternal,  the  Father  is  not. 

Now,  as  God  is  the  only  Eternal  Being  in  the 
universe,  and  Jesus  Christ  is  eternal , it  follows  that 
Christ  is  the  Eternal  Being ; the  God  whose  throne 
is  forever  and  ever. 

IV.  God,  and  God  only,  is  omnipotent. — 1.  He 
styles  himself  u the  Almighty  God,”  a title  that 
clearly  imports  his  unlimited  power.  His  omnipo- 
tence is  displayed  in  the  work  of  creation,  for  “ he 
spake,  and  it  was  done  ; he  commanded,  and  it 
stood  fast.”  At  his  word  a thousand  worlds  start 
from  the  slumbers  of  non-existence,  and  the  mighty 
wheels  of  nature  begin  to  roll.  Another  fiat,  and 
earth,  sea,  and  sky,  are  full  of  life.  u The  pillars 
of  heaven  tremble,  and  are  astonished  at  his  re- 
proof.” “ He  hath  measured  the  waters  in  the  hol- 
low of  his  hand,  meted  out  the  heavens  with  a span, 
comprehended  the  dust  of  the  earth  in  a measure, 
and  weighed  the  mountains  in  scales,  and  the  hills 
in  a balance.”  a He  shaketh  the  earth  out  of  her 
place,  and  the  pillars  thereof  tremble  ; he  command- 
eth  the  sun,  and  it  riseth  not : and  sealeth  up  the 
stars.”  u Lo,  these  are  but  parts  of  his  ways,  but 
how  little  a portion  is  known  of  him,  and  the  thun- 
der of  his  power,  who  can  understand  ?” 

2.  But  while  the  Scriptures  are  thus  explicit  in 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


55 


asserting  the  infinite  power  of  Jehovah,  they  are 
equally  clear  in  teaching  the  omnipotence  of  Christ. 
He  is  called  the  “ Most  Mighty,”  Psa.  xlv.  3 ; “ the 
Mighty  God,”  Isa.  ix.  6 ; and  “ the  Almighty,” 
Rev.  i.  8.  He  says,  “ All  power  is  given  unto  me 
in  heaven  and  in  earth,”  and  his  omnipotence  is 
seen  in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence.  u All 
things  were  made  by  him,”  and  he  “ upholds  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  power.”  To  suppose 
that  there  are  two  beings  of  infinite  power,  is  ab- 
surd ; as  they  must  necessarily  limit  each  other, 
and  one  or  the  other  must  be  finite.  But  the  Scrip- 
tures represent  the  Son  as  omnipotent,  as  well  as 
the  Father ; hence  it  is  clear  that  they  are  one 
Being ; and  that  God  exists  under  the  personal  dis- 
tinction of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

In  reply  to  this  argument  Arians  assert  that  God 
delegated  his  power  to  Christ ; and  it  is  only  as  a 
delegate,  or  agent,  that  he  is  omnipotent.  In  sup- 
port of  this  theory,  they  quote  the  passage — ■“  All 
power  is  given  unto  me,”  laying  great  stress  on  the 
word  “given”  If  this  text  proves  that  Christ’s 
power  was  derived,  a similar  passage  will  prove  the 
same  thing  of  the  Father.  It  is  written,  Acts  i.  7, 
“It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons 
which  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own  power”  Now, 
instead  of  supposing  that  omnipotence  was  given 
to  a creature,  or  that  God  literally  put  things  in  his 
own  power,  it  is  obvious  that  these  passages  mean 
nothing  more  than  that  Christ  and  the  Father  pos- 
sess unlimited  power,  both  in  heaven  and  in  earth  ; 
not  by  delegation,  but  inherently.  Christ  cannot 
be  omnipotent  by  delegation,  because,  (1.)  Omnip- 
otence is  an  incommunicable  attribute  of  Deity. 
God  cannot  make  a creature  omnipotent,  for  to  do 
so  would  be  to  create  a God,  and  destroy  his  own 


56 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


existence.  (2.)  If  God  delegated  infinite  power  to 
a creature,  he  himself  must  have  been  destitute  of 
that  power  ; and  not  the  Almighty  God.  It  is  not 
possible,  therefore,  that  Christ  was  omnipotent  by 
delegation.  Even  some  Arians  have  acknowledged 
this.  Mr.  Perry  says,  in  his  written  discussion, 
that  u no  power  was  delegated  or  given  to  Christ  to 
create  the  world.”  But  how  he  can  reconcile  this 
with  the  idea, that  Christ  is  a creature  and  an  agent , 
is  more  than  we  can  tell.  The  concession  shows, 
however,  the  discord  that  prevails  in  the  Arian 
ranks  ; and  also,  that  the  notion  of  delegated  om- 
nipotence is  far  from  being  satisfactory  to  some  of 
the  leaders  of  that  sect.  As  Scripture  and  reason 
are  against  this  theory,  we  reject  it  as  an  invention 
of  men  ; and  maintain  that  Christ  is,  of  himself,  a 
being  of  infinite  power ; and  consequently  the  self- 
existent  and  eternal  God. 

V.  God,  and  God  only,  is  omniscient. — 1.  By 
this  we  mean  that  he  has  universal  knowledge,  or 
is  infinitely  knowing.  “ Known  unto  God  are  all 
his  works  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.”  “ O 
Lord,  thou  hast  searched  me,  and  known  me. 
Thou  knowest  my  downsitting  and  mine  up- 
rising-; thou  understandest  my  thoughts  afar  off. 
Thou  compassest  my  path  and  my  lying  down,  and 
art  acquainted  with  all  my  way.  For  there  is  not 
a word  in  my  tongue  but  lo,  O Lord,  thou  knowest 
it  altogether.”  u Hell  is  naked  before  him,  and  de- 
struction hath  no  covering.”  Great  is  the  Lord, 
his  understanding  is  infinite.”  No  created  or  finite 
being  can  possibly  be  infinite  in  any  of  his  attri- 
butes ; hence  infinite  knowledge  must  belong  ex- 
clusively to  the  uncreated  and  infinite  God. 

2.  But  Jesus  Christ  is  omniscient.  This  is  incon- 
sistently denied  by  Arians.  They  assert  that  God 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


57 


delegated  omnipotence  to  Christ,  and  yet  that  he 
was  not  omniscient.  But  how  could  this  be  ? 
Could  Christ  have  u all  power  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,”  without  having  all  knowledge?  It  has 
been  said,  with  great  justice,  that  “ knowledge  is 
power ;”  because  the  power  of  all  finite  beings,  to 
say  the  least,  depends  to  a great  extent  upon  their 
knowledge.  This  principle  will  hold  good  in  refe- 
rence to  Christ,  on  the  supposition  that  he  is  a 
creature.  If  he  was  limited  in  knowledge,  he 
must  h$ve  been  limited  in  power  ; as  no  being  can 
act  beyond  his  knowledge.  But  Arians  represent 
him  as  a being  of  very  limited  mental  capacity — • 
increasing  in  wisdom  by  a residence  on  earth — in- 
finitely inferior  to  God  in  knowledge,  and  yet  hav- 
ing infinite  power ! 

It  is  alleged,  from  Matt.  xxiv.  36,  that  Christ  did 
not  know  when  the  day  of  judgment  would  be. 
If  so,  how  can  he  adjust  the  affairs  of  his  mediato- 
rial kingdom,  and  of  the  universe,  preparatory  to 
that  day  ? Is  He,  who  is  to  judge  the  world,  igno- 
rant of  the  period  when  he  is  to  do  it?  In  respect 
to  the  above  text,  we  remark, 

1.  That  it  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  day 
of  judgment.  The  topic,  on  which  our  Lord  is 
discoursing,  is  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ; hence 
he  refers  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  respecting  that 
event,  and  says,  “ When  ye  shall  see  those  things 
come  to  pass,  know  that  it  is  nigh,  even  at  the  door. 
Verily,  I say  unto  you,  that  this  generation  shall  not 
pass,  till  all  these  things  be  done.” — Mark  xiii.  29. 

2.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Christ  intended 
to  disavow  his  knowledge  of  the  time  when  Jeru- 
salem should  be  destroyed.  The  phrase, li  neither 
the  Son,”  is  found  only  in  Mark  ; and  many  emi- 
nent critics  consider  it  spurious. 


58 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


3.  But  even  if  it  be  genuine,  the  term  Son  must 
here  refer  to  the  human  nature  only.  Christ  was 
the  Son  of  God  in  both  natures,  considered  as  dis- 
tinct. Hence,  when  referring  to  either  of  these 
natures,  it  was  necessary  to  call  it  the  Son.  As  to 
the  term  Father,  it  would  be  natural  if  Christ 
spoke  of  his  human  nature  only,  that  he  should 
designate  the  Divinity  by  the  use  of  that  term  ; as 
his  own  Divine  nature  is  called  “ the  Everlasting 
Father,” — Isa.  ix.  6,  and  the  whole  Godhead  is 
called  the  “ Father  of  all.”  Eph.  iv.  6.  As  a hu- 
man being,  then,  Christ  could  say,  “ Of  that  day, 
and  that  hour,  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the  angels 
which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  [as  a 4 man ,’] 
but  the  Father ;”  that  is,  the  Divinity.  As  God, 
Christ  certainly  knew  all  about  this  event.  He 
laid  down  all  the  particulars  relative  to  it,  declared 
that  one  stone  should  not  be  left  upon  another,  and 
all  his  predictions  were  fulfilled  to  the  very  letter. 
How  is  it.  then,  that  he,  in  whom  dwelt  all  the  full- 
ness of  the  Godhead,  did  not  know  this  small  mat- 
ter ? and  yet  Daniel  had  known  and  foretold  the 
time,  hundreds  of  years  before  ? See  Daniel  ix. 
24,  &c. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  if  Christ  disavows  a 
knowledge  of  the  time  of  this  event,  he  does  it  only 
as  man.  In  this  sense  the  text  might  be  true,  but, 
of  his  Divinity,  it  could  not. 

One  of  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of 
Christ’s  nature  as  man,  was  a capability  of  pro- 
gressive advancement  in  knowledge.  “ Jesus  in- 
creased in  wisdom.”  Now,  although  we  maintain 
the  Supreme  Divinity  of  Christ,  we  do  not  suppose 
that  the  incommunicable  attributes  of  Deity,  were 
imparted  to  his  human  nature.  As  a human  being, 
Christ  was  neither  omnipotent,  omniscient,  omni- 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


59 


present,  or  eternal.  He  had  a human  soul  as  well 
as  body,  and  this  soul  u increased  in  wisdom”  like 
other  souls.  Now,  all  that  the  human  soul  of 
Christ  knew  respecting  future  events,  must  have 
been  communicated  to  it  by  the  Divinity.  As  man, 
then,  he  might  have  known  all  that  was  to  take 
place  relative  to  Jerusalem,  excepting  the  time,  a 
knowledge  of  which  was  not  communicated. 

That  Christ  often  spoke  in  reference  to  his  hu- 
manity and  Divinity,  as  distinct  from  each  other,  is 
certain.  As  man  he  could  say,  “ I am  no  more  in 
the  world — me  ye  have  not  always;”  but,  as  God, 
he  says,  he  will  “ make  his  abode  with  us” — meet 
“ where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  his 
name,”  and  be  with  his  disciples  u alway,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world.”  So  also,  as  man,  he  could 
say  he  knew  not  the  day  nor  the  hour  when  Jeru- 
salem should  be  destroyed ; while,  as  God,  he  knew 
all  things. 

Both  Kinkade  and  Millard  object  to  this  view  of 
the  subject,  as  implicating  Christ  in  the  charge  of 
prevarication  and  falsehood.  Their  position  is,  that 
if  Christ  knew  a thing  in  any  sense,  he  could  not 
in  truth  say  he  did  not  know  it.  But  suppose  we 
apply  this  rule  to  some  other  sayings  of  his,  and 
say,  if  Christ  is  with  us  alway  in  any  sense,  he 
could  not  say,  u me  ye  have  not  alway.”  Would 
not  the  objection  be  equally  reasonable?  Christ 
says  he  is,  and  is  not , with  us  alway,  because  as 
God  he  is  with  us,  while,  as  man,  he  has  gone  into 
heaven.  So,  as  man,  he  was  finite  in  knowledge, 
while,  as  God,  his  understanding  was  infinite.  To 
illustrate  their  position,  both  the  above  writers  com- 
pare Christ  to  a man,  one  of  whose  eyes  is  defec- 
tive ; and  allege,  that  if  he  sees  a thing  with  one 
eye,  he  cannot  say  he  does  not  see  it ; therefore,  if 


60 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


Christ  knew  a thing  in  one  nature,  he  could  not 
say  he  did  not  know  it.  In  the  case  of  the  man 
with  one  eye,  there  would  be  falsehood  ; but  the 
case  of  Christ  is  widely  different.  The  man  has 
but  one  intellect  that  could  possibly  know  a thing ; 
hence,  if  he  denied  seeing  a thing,  the  same  intel- 
lect that  saw  must  deny  that  it  saw,  simply  because 
it  had  but  one  eye  to  see  with.  But  in  the  case  of 
Christ  there  were  two  intellects,  the  Divine  and  in- 
finite Spirit,  and  the  human  soul ; hence,  if  the  Di- 
vinity only  saw  a future  event,  it  would  not  be  false- 
hood for  the  humanity  to  say  it  did  not  know  it.  If 
the  man  in  the  Arian  illustration  had  two  distinct 
souls,  one  of  which  saw  with  the  right  eye,  and  the 
other  with  the  left,  the  soul  that  had  the  blind  eye 
could  say,  u I cannot  see,”  though  the  other  soul 
had  the  most  extended  and  perfect  vision. 

4.  To  say  that  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ  did  not 
know  this  matter,  is  to  contradict  numerous  Scrip- 
tures that  represent  him  as  omniscient.  u Jesus  did 
not  commit  himself  unto  them  because  he  knew  all 
men , and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  of  man, 
for  he  knew  what  was  in  man .”  u Jesus  knew  from 
the  beginning  who  they  were  who  believed  not.” 
“ The  word  of  God  is  quick  and  powerful,  and 
is  a discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the 
heart.  Neither  is  there  any  creature  that  is  not 
manifest  in  his  sight ; but  all  things  are  naked  and 
open  to  the  eyes  of  Him  with  whom  we  have  to 
do.”  Without  infinite  knowledge,  Christ  could 
never  have  created  the  universe,  neither  could  he 
now  “ uphold  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power.” 
Much  less  would  he  be  qualified  a to  be  the  Judge 
of  quick  and  dead.”  But  he  is  to  judge  the  secrets 
of  men’s  hearts — to  bring  every  work  into  judgment, 
with  every  secret  thing — to  bring  to  light  the  hidden 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


61 


things  of  darkness,  and  make  manifest  the  counsels 
of  the  heart.  Can  he  do  these  things  without  in- 
finite knowledge  ? Most  certainly  not. 

In  the  2d  of  Colossians,  we  read  of  “ the  mystery 
of  God,  and  of  the  Father,  and  of  Christ ; in  whom 
are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.37 
Here  the  Apostle  speaks  first  of  God,  by  which  he 
means  the  whole  Godhead,  and  afterwards  mentions 
the  Father  and  Christ  as  distinct  persons  in  the 
Trinity.  He  affirms  that  in  Christ  all  the  trea- 
sures of  wisdom  and  knowledge  are  hid.  Now 
could  this  be  true,  if  there  were  some  things  that 
Christ  did  not  know  ? Do  “ all  the  treasures  of 
wisdom  and  knowledge33  mean  a part  of  them  1 
Again — It  is  written,  u I the  Lord  search  the  heart, 
I try  the  reins,  even  to  give  every  man  according  to 
his  ways,  and  according  to  the  fruit  of  his  doings.33 
Solomon  says,  “ Thou,  even  thou  only , knowest  the 
hearts  of  all  the  children  of  men.33  But  Christ 
says,  in  the  2d  chapter  of  Revelation,  “ I am  he 
which  searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts ; and  I will 
give  unto  every  one  of  you  according  to  your 
works,33  using  the  same  language  to  assert  his  Dei- 
ty and  omniscience,  that  he  had  used  by  Jeremiah 
hundreds  of  years  before.  He  thus  identifies  him- 
self as  the  heart-searching  and  rein-trying  God ; and 
clearly  asserts  his  own  omniscience. 

Peter,  in  addressing  himself  to  Christ  says,  “ Thou 
knowest  all  things,33  and  yet  Christ  did  not  rebuke 
him  as  a heretic,  or  even  intimate  that  the  sentiment 
was  erroneous.  Now,  if  Christ  knew  all  things,  of 
course  he  knew  when  Jerusalem  would  be  destroyed, 
nor  can  any  other  being  know  more  than  he  does. 
If  he  knows  all  men,  knows  what  is  in  man,  and 
knew  who  would  believe ; if  all  things  are  open 
before  him ; if  he  has  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom 
6 


62 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


and  knowledge,  is  to  judge  the  world,  and  is  that 
Being  who  alone  can  search  the  hearts  of  men  ; he 
must  be  infinite  in  knowledge,  the  Arian  hypothe- 
sis to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  From  these 
premises  then,  as  thus  supported,  the  Deity  of 
Christ  necessarily  follows.  God,  and  God  only,  is 
omniscient.  Jesus  Christ  is  omniscient,  therefore 
Jesus  Christ  is  God. 

VI.  The  Deity  of  Christ  follows  from  his 
Omnipresence.  Omnipresence,  says  Webster,  is 
u presence  in  all  places  at  the  same  time — un- 
bounded or  universal  presence.” 

1.  God,  and  God  only,  is  omnipresent.  “Whith- 
er shall  I go  from  thy  spirit,  or  whither  shall  I flee 
from  thy  presence?  If  I ascend  up  into  heaven 
thou  art  there : if  I make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold 
thou  art  there.  If  I take  the  wings  of  the  morning, 
and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  sea ; even 
there  shall  thy  hand  lead  me  and  thy  right  hand 
shall  hold  me.”  “ Can  any  hide  himself  in  the  se- 
cret place  that  I shall  not  see  him,  saith  the  Lord  ? 
Do  not  I fill  heaven  and  earth,  saith  the  Lord  ?” 
Plain  and  explicit  as  are  the  Scriptures  on  this 
point,  Arians  virtually  deny  the  omnipresence  of 
Deity.  They  first  assume  that  God  has  a body 
like  a man,  and  then,  to  be  consistent  with  them- 
selves, deny  that  he  is  every  where  present.  So 
Mr.  Kinkade,  in  his  chapter  on  a material  Deity. 
We  will  give  a specimen  of  his  reasoning.  “ This 
doctrine,”  says  he,  “ deprives  God  of  his  agency,  for 
if  his  essence  fills  immensity,  he  cannot  be  an  active 
Being,  because  there  could  be  no  room  for  him  to 
act  in,  unless  he  could  act  beyond  immensity,  which 
is  impossible.  He  cannot  even  turn  round  unless 
there  is  some  space  outside  of  him,  and  if  there  is, 
he  does  not  fill  all  immensity.”  u If  he  fills  all  im- 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


03 


mensity,  he  cannot  have  the  power  of  locomotion, 
unless  he  contracts  and  dilates  his  person,”  &c. 
“ If  his  person  fills  immensity,  his  sight  does  not 
extend  one  inch  from  him.  The  sight  of  an  ant 
extends  but  a few  inches  around  it,  while  that  of  a 
man  extends  as  many  miles.  As  God  surpasses  us 
infinitely  more  than  we  do  the  smallest  insect ; we 
must  suppose  he  can  sit  on  his  throne  in  heaven, 
and  see  and  control  every  being  in  the  universe 
without  being  with  them  in  person.” — “ Bible  Doc- 
trine,” pp.  156-7-67.  In  disposing  of  those  Scrip- 
tures that  teach  that  God  is  every  where,  Mr.  K. 
says,  “ God  can  fill  heaven  and  earth  with  his  ar- 
mies, his  power,  his  infinite  riches  and  perfection,” 
and  quotes  passages  to  show  that  he  is  omnipresent 
by  his  glory,  his  knowledge,  &c. 

Notwithstanding  the  Psalmist  says,  “ If  I make 
my  bed  in  hell,  behold  thou  art  there,”  Mr.  K. 
says,  (p.  70,)  “If  God  is  as  much  in  hell  as  he  is 
any  where  else,  the  wicked  shall  not  depart  from 
him  to  go  there.  The  phrase  c depart  from  me  in- 
to everlasting  fire,’  proves  that  God  and  hell-fire 
are  not  in  the  same  place.”  We  shall  leave  the 
reader  to  decide  which  is  most  consistent,  the  Arian 
notion  of  a corporeal  and  local  Divinity,  or  the  Scrip- 
tural doctrine  of  a spiritual  and  omnipresent  God. 

2.  But  Jesus  Christ  is  omnipresent.  This  is  im- 
plied where  it  is  said  he  “ upholdeth  all  things,” 
and  “ by  him  all  things  consist ;”  as  no  being  can  act 
where  he  is  not.  Paul  says  he  “ filleth  all  in  all,” 
and  Christ  says,  “ Where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together,  there  am  I in  the  midst.”  “ Lo,  I am  with 
you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  word.”  But 
Arians  say,  Christ  is  not  absolutely  omnipresent, 
and  that  the  omnipresence  he  possesses  is  no  proof 
of  his  Divinity.  As  an  illustration,  Mr.  Millard 


64 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


says,  Satan  is  in  very  many  places  at  the  same  time, 
and  yet  is  not  omnipresent.  This  we  deny.  We 
have  no  proof  that  a good  angel  even,  can  be  in 
two  places  at  once  ; and  as  to  Satan,  he  must  “go 
about  like  a roaring  lion”  to  seek  his  prey.  The 
amount  of  temptation  and  sin  in  all  parts  of  the 
world,  is  no  proof  that  the  Devil  is  omnipresent,  as 
all  this  is  not  to  be  charged  to  one  evil  spirit,  but  to 
“ the  Devil  and  his  angels.”  Instead  of  one  omni- 
present Devil,  as  Arians  suppose,  it  is  probable  that 
there  are  more  fallen  spirits  that  have  access  to  our 
world,  and  are  striving  against  truth  and  holiness, 
than  there  are  human  beings  on  the  face  of  the  globe. 
Mr.  M.’s  theory  is,  therefore,  a mere  hypothesis ; and 
the  omnipresence  of  Christ  cannot  be  disproved  by 
putting  him  on  a level  with  Satan. 

The  sum  of  our  argument  upon  this  point  is,  that 
God  and  God  only  is  omnipresent ; but  as  Christ 
is  omnipresent,  Jesus  Christ  is  God. 

VII.  The  Divinity  of  Christ  follows,  from 

THE  FACT  THAT  HE  IS  THE  PROPER  OBJECT  OF  RE- 
LIGIOUS WORSHIP. 

By  religious  worship  we  do  not  mean  mere  re - 
sped , honor , or  veneration , such  as  is  due  from  man 
to  man ; but  divine  honors,  supreme  respect  and 
adoration,  such  as  is  due  to  God  only.  In  no  other 
sense  do  the  Scriptures  speak  of  worship  as  a re- 
ligious act ; and  in  this  sense  has  the  term  always 
been  used  by  the  Church  of  Christ.  Now  we  learn 
from  the  Scriptures, 

1 . That  no  being  is  entitled  to  religious  worship  but 
God.  u Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
him  only  shalt  thou  serve.”  u Hear,  O Israel : The 
Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord : And  thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all 
thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might.”  But  while  it  is 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


65 


thus  clear  that  no  being  but  God  is  entitled  to  re- 
ligious worship,  it  is  equally  clear, 

2.  That  Jesus  Christ  is  entitled  to  this  worship. 
“ Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him” — “ At 
the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  shall  bow” — “ All  men 
should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Fa- 
ther”— “ And  they  stoned  Stephen  calling  upon  God , 
and  saying,  Lord  Jesus , receive  my  spirit” — “ And 
they  worshipped  Him , and  returned  to  Jerusalem 
with  great  joy” — “ And  they  came  and  held  him 
by  the  feet  and  worshipped  him” — “ And  when  they 
saw  him  they  worshipped  him”  &c.  In  the  first 
chapter  of  1st  Corinthians,  the  Apostle  directs  his  epis- 
tle to  “ the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth — 
with  all  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.”  From  this  we  learn  that  a dis- 
tinguishing characteristic  of  the  11  saints”  of  the 
apostolic  age,  was  that  they  prayed  to  Christ ; and 
consequently  Christ  received  the  worship  of  the 
apostles  and  the  primitive  Church.  Of  course,  then, 
he  is  the  proper  object  of  religious  worship. 

But  here  again  we  are  met  by  our  opponents. 
While  they  admit  that  God  is  the  only  being  that 
may  receive  religious  worship  in  its  proper  sense, 
they  deny  that  Christ  ever  received  such  worship  ; 
or  is  in  any  respect  entitled  to  it.  They  consider 
the  worship  due  to  Christ  as  mere  “ adoration,  re- 
spect, or  honor,”  such  as  may  be  paid  to  parents, 
magistrates,  and  rulers.  Hence  Kinkade  says,  “ It 
is  perfectly  right  to  worship  earthly  rulers,  and 
when  the  Lord  says,  1 Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord 
thy  God  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve,5  the  mean- 
ing is  that  we  must  worship  and  serve,  that  is,  hon- 
or and  obey  him,  and  him  alone  as  the  Supreme 
God.  He  does  not  mean  that  we  should  not  wor- 
ship and  serve  our  magistrates  and  families  in  their 
6* 


66 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


proper  places.  If  it  is  wrong  to  worship  creatures, 
Christ  would  not  have  directed  us  to  use  means  to 
get  our  neighbors  to  worship  us.  I worship  the  Fa- 
ther as  the  Supreme  Being,  and  I worship  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Son  of  God — the  next  greatest  being 
to  God  in  the  universe,”  &c. — pp.  123,  4. 

That  the  term  worship  is  sometimes  used  in 
Scriptures  to  represent  respect  to  parents  or  magis- 
trates, no  one  denies ; but,  when  thus  employed,  it  is 
used  in  an  accommodated  sense,  to  denote  filial  or 
civil  respect,  and  not  to  signify  religious  worship. 
But  in  this  secondary  sense,  Arians  worship  Christ. 
They  pay  him  a sort  of  deference,  which  falls  as  far 
short  of  religious  worship,  as  honoring  a creature 
falls  below  the  worship  of  God.  We  are,  therefore, 
borne  out  in  the  assertion,  that  Arians  pay  no  reli- 
gious worship  to  Christ  whatever  ; as  filial  or  civil 
reverence  is  not  religious  worship.  If  the  proper 
distinction  between  religious  worship  and  mere  re- 
spect to  creatures  be  kept  in  view,  it  will  be  clear 
that  Arians  do  not  worship  Christ,  any  more  than 
they  worship  their  parents,  or  the  President  of  the 
United  States. 

But  it  is  contended,  that  there  are  various  kinds 
of  religious  worship  ; and  that,  while  we  are  for- 
bidden to  worship  any  being  but  God,  as  God ; 
it  is  right  to  pay  a subordinate  religious  worship  to 
a creature ; and  that  we  may  worship  Christ  re- 
ligiously as  a creature,  while  at  the  same  time  we 
worship  God  only  as  the  Supreme  Being.  This  is 
the  true  doctrine  of  modern  Arians ; and  against  it 
we  urge  the  following  objections 

1.  There  is  no  such  distinction  in  religious  wor- 
ship as  this  theory  supposes.  Reverence  to  parents 
and  rulers  is  entirely  different  and  distinct  from 
religious  worship.  The  object  to  whom  worship  is 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


67 


paid,  affects  its  quality  ; and  no  worship  is  truly  re- 
ligious, but  that  which  is  paid  to  the  Deity  himself. 
Neither  the  worship  of  idols,  or  of  any  other 
creature,  can  be  called  religious  worship  in  the 
Christian  sense.  The  above  hypothesis,  therefore, 
being  built  upon  a distinction  that  does  not  exist, 
must  fall  to  the  ground. 

2.  The  Scriptures  no  where  claim  a subordinate 
or  creature  worship  for  Christ.  If  the  reader  will 
turn  back,  and  read  over  the  passages  already  ad- 
duced that  speak  of  Christ’s  worship,  he  will  find 
that  they  not  only  contain  no  hint  that  his  worship 
should  be  of  a secondary  quality,  but  on  the  con- 
trary they  claim  for  him  supreme  love  and  adora- 
tion. “ All  men  should  honor  the  Son,  even  as 
they  honor  the  Father .”  Now,  whether  the  term 
u honor”  means  worship,  as  Arians  teach,  or  not, 
the  case  is  the  same.  The  text  claims  for  Christ 
the  same  worship  or  honor  that  is  paid  to  the  Fa- 
ther. But  do  we  worship  the  Father  'as  a creature  ? 
Do  we  “ honor  the  Father”  by  offering  him  a spu- 
rious worship?  We  are  to  worship  him  as  the  Su- 
preme Object  of  all  religious  worship,  and  love  him 
with  all  our  hearts  ; and  u all  men  should  honor 
the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.” 

The  worship  of  primitive  Christians  was  con- 
ducted in  obedience  to  these  instructions.  Even 
angels,  who  worship  the  Father,  worship  Christ. 
All  should  bow  to  the  Father,  and  also  to  the  Son. 
The  early  saints  called  upon  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  Paul  says,  they  u called  upon  the  name 
of  Jesus.”  Dying  Stephen  called  upon  the  name 
of  God,  when  he  said,  “ Lord  Jesus,  receive  my 
spirit,”  as  soul  and  body  were  parting.  There  is 
not  an  instance  on  record  in  which  the  worship  paid 
to  Christ  seems  to  have  been  any  thing  less  than 


68 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


that  which  was  usually  paid  to  the  Supreme  Be- 
ing- 

3.  The  distinction  of  worship  on  which  the 
Arian  theory  depends  for  its  support,  is  the  ground- 
work of  one  of  the  most  pernicious  practices  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  When  a Papist  is  accused  of 
idolatry,  in  worshipping  relics  and  saints,  his  an- 
swer is,  “ We  do  not  worship  them  as  God , but 
merely  as  creatures .”  Let  us  hear  one  of  their 
priests  on  this  point.  We  quote  from  “ Lectures  on 
the  Principal  Doctrines  and  Practices  of  the  Ca- 
tholic Church,55  by  Nicholas  Wiseman,  D.  D.,  vol. 
ii.  p.  77. 

66  For,  my  brethren,  what  is  idolatry  ? It  is  the 
giving  to  man,  or  to  any  thing  created,  that  hom- 
age, that  adoration,  and  that  worship,  which  God 
hath  reserved  unto  himself;  and,  to  substantiate 
such  a charge  [that  of  idolatry]  against  us,  it  must 
be  proved  that  such  honor  and  worship  is  alien- 
ated by  us  from  God,  and  given  to  a creature.  Now, 
what  is  the  Catholic  belief  on  the  subject  of  giving 
worship  or  veneration  to  the  saints  or  their  em- 
blems ? You  will  not  open  a single  Catholic  work, 
from  the  folio  decrees  of  Councils,  down  to  the 
smallest  catechisms,  in  which  you  will  not  find  it 
expressly  taught,  that  it  is  sinful  to  pay  the  same 
homage  or  worship  to  the  saints  which  we  pay  to 
God : that  supreme  honor  and  worship  are  re- 
served exclusively  to  him,  &c.  No  one  surely 
will  say,  that  there  is  no  distinction  between  one 
species  of  homage  and  reverence  and  another  ; no 
one  will  assert,  that  when  we  honor  the  king,  or 
his  representatives,  or  our  parents,  or  others  in  law- 
ful authority  over  us,  we  are  thereby  derogating 
from  the  supreme  honor  due  to  God.55  Again,  p. 
78 — “ It  is  wasting  time  to  prove  that  there  may 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


69 


be  honor  and  worship,  so  subservient  o God,  as 
in  no  way  to  interfere  with  what  is  due  to  him. 
What  I have  cursorily  stated,  is  precisely  the  Ca- 
tholic belief  regarding*  the  saints.” 

From  this  quotation,  every  one  can  see  that  the 
theory  of  Kinkade  and  the  Arians,  and  that  of  I)r. 
Wiseman  and  the  Catholics,  is  precisely  the  same. 
It  is  used  for  the  same  purpose  in  both  cases,  name- 
ly, to  repel  the  charge  of  idolatry,  and  justify  sub- 
ordinate religious  worship.  The  only  difference 
is  that  the  Catholics  worship  a number  of  creatures, 
while  the  Arians  worship  but  one.  If  the  distinc- 
tion contended  for  by  the  latter  is  correct,  the  former 
are  certainly  right  in  worshipping  relics,  images, 
and  saints  ; so  that  we  must  either  reject  the  Arian 
notion  of  supreme  and  subordinate  worship,  or  sanc- 
tion all  the  idolatry  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

4.  This  theory  must  create  great  confusion  and 
great  danger  in  religious  worship.  In  the  first 
place,  it  acknowledges  two  Gods,  both  of  whom  are 
objects  of  religious  adoration.  But  while  Christ  is 
worshipped  as  well  as  the  Father,  it  is  admitted, 
that  to  pay  him  the  highest  order  of  worship,  would, 
be  downright  idolatry.  This  being  the  case,  we 
might  expect  that  the  worship  of  Christ  and  the 
worship  of  God  would  be  kept  distinct  by  Arians ; 
and  that  they  would  not  only  have  a set  day  for  the 
public  worship  of  each,  but  also  give  notice,  that 
on  such  a day  they  would  meet  to  worship  the 
creature,  (Christ,)  and  on  such  a day  to  worship 
God;  that  is,  one  day  for  their  supreme  and  another 
for  their  subordinate  Divinities.  This  would  be 
nothing  more  than  is  imperatively  demanded,  if  the 
Arian  notion  be  correct,  in  order  to  the  safety  of 
the  souls  of  the  worshippers.  Hence  the  Catholics, 
who  worship  images,  &c.,  on  the  same  principle 


70 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


that  Arians  worship  Christ,  allow  each  saint  his 
day  j and  keep  the  worship  of  their  respective  gods 
in  a great  measure  distinct.  But  instead  of  this 
necessary  precaution  on  the  part  of  the  Arians, 
they  worship  both  their  Gods  on  the  same  day,  in 
the  same  place,  and  in  the  same  hour ; and  adopt 
no  measures  whatever  to  guard  themselves  or  others 
against  the  horrible  sin  of  idolatry.  They  use  the 
same  day,  and  notify  their  worship  in  the  same 
manner,  that  Trinitarians  do  ; and  make  no  distinc- 
tion whatever  between  the  worship  of  Christ  and 
of  God  in  any  part  of  their  services. 

Again : Both  Arians  and  Catholics  admit,  that 
to  render  supreme  worship  to  a creature  would  be 
idolatry ; and  yet  if  Arians  worship  Christ  at  all, 
they  take  the  very  means  to  secure  him  supreme 
homage.  They  worship  him  publicly  on  the  same 
day  that  those  worship  who  worship  God  only — 
make  great  efforts  in  the  pulpit  professedly  to  exalt 
Christ — often  pray  to  him  and  claim  to  love  him 
better  than  others ; and  even  arrogate  to  themselves 
exclusively  the  name  of  Christian.  With  all  these 
helps  to  the  supreme  worship  of  Christ,  they  have 
no  guards  to  prevent  so  ruinous  a calamity.  In- 
stead of  erecting  light-houses  on  the  coast  of  de- 
struction, they  kindle  bonfires  to  lure  souls  to  the 
dark  rocks  of  idolatry  and  eternal  ruin.  Their 
leaders  never  say,  “ Now  let  us  worship  Christ — 
be  careful  and  worship  him  as  a creature — restrain 
your  love  and  reverence,  and  give  him  only  a par- 
tial homage” — no  ; all  is  mingled  together  in  indis- 
criminate confusion.  Some  are  worshipping  one 
of  their  Gods,  and  some  another — one  moment  they 
worship  Jehovah,  and  the  next  a creature,  and  nil 
are  constantly  liable  to  go  so  far  in  the  worship  of 
Christ  as  to  ruin  their  souls  forever. 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


71 


This  danger  has  been  seen,  even  by  Arians  them- 
selves. A minister,  who  denied  the  Deity  of  Christ, 
says,  in  writing  to  another,  “I  know  not  what  to 
do.  My  people  will  not  worship  Christ.  When  I 
urge  them  to  this  duty,  they  reply,  ‘ Thou  shall 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve.’  Others,  to  be  on  the  safe  side,  have  given 
up  the  worship  of  Christ  altogether,  and  denounced 
it  as  4 idolatrous  worship ” and,  if  Arianism  be 
true,  this  is  far  more  consistent  and  safe  than  to 
persist  in  the  worship  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour. 

5.  The  Arian  theory  of  worship  not  only  coun- 
tenances the  idolatry  of  the  Romish  Church,  but 
likewise  that  of  all  Pagan  lands.  It  is  assumed, 
both  by  Arians  and  Catholics,  that  it  is  not  idolatry 
to  worship  a creature,  unless  we  worship  it  u as  the 
Supreme  God.”  Now  let  us  apply  this  rule  to  Pa- 
gan idolatry.  Does  the  African  worship  his  gree , 
gree , as  the  Supreme  God?  Did  the  Ephesians 
worship  Diana  as  the  first  and  highest  of  all  Di- 
vinities ? Were  not  all  the  gods  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  subordinate  Divinities,  one  excepted  ? The 
truth  is,  few,  if  any,  of  the  gods  of  Pagan  lands  are 
worshipped  as  supreme  ; hence,  according  to  the 
Arian  doctrine,  there  is  little  or  no  idolatry  in  the 
world 

6.  Finally:  We  deny  that  the  Scriptures  justify 
us  in  paying  religious  worship  to  a creature  in  any 
degree  whatever.  It  is  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that 
the  text — “ Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,” 
&c. — refers  to  religious  worship  only.  Now  the 
same  text  that  commands  us  to  pay  religious  wor- 
ship to  God,  is  equally  clear  and  authoritative  in 
the  prohibition,  “ Him  only  shalt  thou  serve.” 
We  are  thereby  solemnly  inhibited  from  paying 
any  kind  of  religious  worship  to  any  being  but 


72 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


God : nor  is  there  a single  instance  on  record  where 
a creature  was  worshipped  with  the  Divine  approval. 

If,  as  Arians  tell  us,  the  above  text  does  not  for- 
bid the  worship  of  creatures,  hut  merely  cautions 
us  against  regarding  them  as  supreme,  why  did 
Christ  employ  it  in  his  conflict  with  Satan  ? The 
enemy  did  not  ask  to  be  worshipped  as  God,  but  in 
his  proper  character  as  a Devil,  tempted  Christ  to  wor- 
ship him.  He  asked  merely  for  worship,  without 
specifying  any  particular  kind  or  degree,  and  Christ 
quotes  the  law  as  forbidding  it.  Now,  if  the  law 
did  not  forbid  the  worship  of  all  creatures,  of  course 
it  did  not  forbid  the  worship  of  Satan,  provided  it 
was  not  supreme  ; and  as  Satan  asked  only  to  be 
worshipped  as  a creature,  the  text  was  wrongly  ap- 
plied. But  the  use  made  of  this  text  by  our  Lord 
shows  conclusively,  that  Christ  understood  it  as  for- 
bidding the  worship  of  all  creatures. 

When  John  was  about  to  worship  the  angel,  Rev. 
xxii.  8,  the  angel  said  to  him,  14  See  thou  do  it  not 
and  immediately  assigns  the  reason,  namely,  that 
he  also  was  a creature.  Kinkade’s  exposition  of 
the  text  goes  to  show  that  the  angel  was  willing  to 
be  worshipped,  but  objected  only  to  supreme  wor- 
ship. He  says,  44  The  reason  why  the  angel  talked 
so  to  John,  was,  that  he  saw  John  was  about  to 
offer  him  undue  worship,  that  is,  John  was  going  to 
worship  him  too  as  the  Supreme  GodP  He  then 
attempts  to  show  that  the  angel  was  Christ.  To 
this  interpretation  we  object.  (1.)  The  angel  said, 
44 1 am  thy  fellow-servant,  and  of  thy  brethren  the 
prophets .”  If  he  was  one  of  the  old  prophets,  he 
could  not  have  been  Jesus  Christ.  (2.)  Jesus 
Christ  never  said  to  any  of  his  worshippers,  44  See 
thou  do  it  not.”  (3.)  The  angel  did  not  say, 44  Do 
not  worship  me  as  God:  or  as  an  angel  ” but  for- 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


73 


bade  John  to  worship  him  at  all ; and  then  directed 
him  to  the  only  proper  object  of  religious  worship. 
John  mistook  the  angel  for  Christ,  and  therefore 
fell  down  to  worship  him.  The  angel  seeing  this, 
corrects  the  mistake  by  telling  who  he  was,  and 
says,  “ worship  God as  if  God  only  might  be 
worshipped.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  it  is  wrong 
to  pay  any  degree  of  religious  worship  to  any  crea- 
ture whatever. 

From  all  these  considerations,  we  are  compelled 
to  reject  the  Arian  theory  of  worship,  as  an  un- 
scriptural,  unreasonable,  and  dangerous  invention  ; 
and  to  consider  the  worship  paid  to  Christ  as  un- 
restricted and  supreme.  Now,  as  no  being  but 
God  may  receive  religious  worship,  and  yet  all  the 
angels  of  God,  and  the  whole  human  family,  are 
required  to  worship  Christ,  it  follows  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  God  ; and  in  worshipping  him  supremely, 
we  are  obeying  the  commandment,  u Thou  shall 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God:  and  him  only  shalt  thou 
serve" 

VIII.  The  Deity  of  Christ  ts  necessarily  im- 
plied IN  NUMEROUS  PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE. “ Be- 

ing in  the  form  of  God,  he  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God.” — Philip,  ii.  6.  “ In  him 

dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.” — 
Col.  ii.  9.  The  Father  is  in  me,  and  I in  him.” — 
John  x.  38.  “ I and  my  Father  are  one.” — John 

x.  30.  i6  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Fa- 
ther.”— John  xiv.  9.  u All  men  should  honor  the 
Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.” — John  v.  23. 
None  of  these  passages  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
idea  that  Christ  was  a creature.  For  a creature  to 
be  equal  with  God  would  certainly  be  robbery ; 
and  even  Anans  admit  that  to  honor  a creature,  as 
we  honar  the  Father,  is  idolatry.  We  must  there* 


74 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


fore  believe  that  he  who  spake,  or  was  spoken  of, 
in  these  passages,  was  the  uncreated  Word  ; a God 
manifest  in  the  flesh.” 

IX.  The  titles  of  Christ  are  proofs  of  his 
proper  Divinity. — 1.  The  title  of  “Lord”  is  a 
common  name  for  Jehovah  throughout  the  Old 
Testament.  It  is  said  u the  Lord  our  God  is  one 
Lord,”  and  the  New  Testament  teaches  “ one  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism  :”  and  yet  this  same  book, 
that  reveals  God  to  man  under  the  name  of  “ Lord,” 
reveals  Christ  to  us  as  “ King  of  kings,  and  Lord 
of  lords.”  Indeed,  “ Lord”  is  a common  title  of 
Christ  throughout  the  New  Testament.  Now,  on 
the  supposition  that  he  is  a mere  creature,  why  has 
the  Holy  Ghost  revealed  this  creature  to  man,  under 
the  same  title  that  reveals  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament % But  more  on  this  point  hereafter. 

2.  The  name,  “ Son  of  God,”  implies  absolute 
Divinity,  and  was  so  understood  by  the  Jews  of  our 
Lord’s  time,  and  by  Christ  himself.  We  have  de- 
fined the  term  sou  as  applied  to  Christ  in  Chapter 
XL,  and  need  only  add  here,  that  it  was  never  ap- 
plied to  his  pre-existent  nature  to  signify  that  it  was 
begotten,  or  born  ; or  that  he  had  a natural  father 
or  mother.  Of  course,  then,  the  fact  that  Christ  is 
called  “ the  Son  of  God,”  is  no  evidence  of  his  in- 
feriority, any  more  than  the  use  of  the  term  Father 
is  proof  of  family  relations  in  the  Godhead.  Christ 
is  called  “ the  Everlasting  Father,”  as  well  as 
u the  Son  of  God.”  When  he  said,  “ God  was  his 
Father,”  John  v.  18,  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him, 
not  because,  as  they  understood  him,  he  had  de- 
clared himself  a creature,  but  because  he  had  made 
himself  equal  with  God.  Again — Because  he  said, 
u I am  the  Son  of  God,”  John  x.  36,  “the  Jews 
took  up  stones  again  to  stone  him ; and,  when 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


75 


asked  why  they  did  it,  they  answer,  “ for  blas- 
phemy ; and  because  that  thou  being  a man 
makest  thyself  God.”  In  both  these  cases,  the 
Jews  understood  him  to  assert  his  absolute  Divin- 
ity ; for,  when  he  said  he  was  the  Son  of  God, 
they  said  he  made  himself  God.  It  is  certain, 
therefore,  that  the  Jews  understood  the  title,  “ Son 
of  God,”  as  a title  of  Divinity  ; and  it  is  no  small 
confirmation  of  this  idea  that  Josephus,  a learned 
Jew  of  that  age,  calls  Christ  “ God  the  Word,”  p. 
609.  If,  then,  this  title  is  a title  of  supreme  Divin- 
ity, and  was  so  used  by  Christ,  knowing  how  he 
would  be  understood,  it  follows  that  Christ  claimed 
Divinity  when  he  said  he  was  the  Son  of  God ; 
and  the  application  of  this  title  to  Christ  in  the 
Scripture,  is  proof  of  his  Deity. 

3.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  God  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  John  crying  in  the  wilderness  before 
Christ,  was  to  say,  “ Make  straight  in  the  desert  a 
highway  for  our  God.”  “ Behold  your  God,”  Isa. 
iv.  3,  9.  Christ  is  called  u The  Mighty  God,”  Isa. 
ix.  6 ; “ God  with  us,”  Matt.  i.  23  ; “ the  Lord  our 
God,”  Luke  i.  16;  “ God  manifest  in  the  flesh,” 
1 Tim,  iii.  16  ; 66  God  our  Saviour,”  Tit.  ii.  10  ; the 
God  whose  throne  “ is  forever  and  ever,”  Heb.  i. 
8 ; 66  the  true  God,”  1 John  v.  20  ; “ the  God  who 
purchased  the  Church  with  his  own  blood,”  Acts 
xx.  28  ; u and  the  God  who'  laid  down  his  life  for 
us,”  1 John  iii.  16.  Thomas  calls  him  “his  Lord 
and  his  God,”  John  xx.  28,  and  it  is  said,  “ the  Word 
was  God,”  John  i.  1.  In  view  of  these  passages, 
Arians  admit  that  “ Christ  is  called  God,”  and  that 
he  is  God  in  a subordinate  sense.  Kinkade  says, 
“ I conscientiously  call  him  my  Lord  and  my  God, 
and  yet  I firmly  believe  he  is  a created  being.” 
Mr.  Perry  says,  “ he  is  God,  though  not  the  only 


76 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


true  God.”  It  is  thus  assumed  that  there  are  two 
Gods,  one  created,  and  the  other  eternal ; and  to 
keep  this  theory  in  countenance,  it  is  alleged  that 
Moses  was  God,  and  that  there  are  many  gods  be- 
sides Jehovah.  But  we  are  not  contending  that 
there  are  no  false  gods,  or  that  Moses  was  not  u a 
god  to  Pharaoh.”  This  we  admit,  hut  it  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  question,  Moses  was  “ a god 
to  ^Pharaoh,”  that  is,  “ instead  of  God,”  Exod.  iv. 
16  ; as  Moses  sustained  the  same  relation  to  Aaron 
as  his  teacher,  that  God  sustained  to  Moses;  but 
the  Scriptures  nowhere  represent  Christ  as  “ a god,” 
or  u instead  of  God.”  It  is  a mere  evasion  of  the 
question,  therefore,  to  introduce  Moses  and  others 
as  Gods,  even  though  the  capital  G be  added  in  all 
cases,  as  is  done  by  Kinkade. 

On  the  supposition  that  the  title  God  in  the  above 
texts  is  applied  to  a creature,  it  ought  certainly  to 
have  been  qualified  by  the  introduction  of  an  ad- 
jective ; especially  as  the  Bible  reveals  but  one  God. 
John  should  have  said,  “ Behold  your  created  God,” 
and  we  should  read,  “ The  Mighty  created  God — 
our  created  God — the  true  created  God — my  Lord 
and  my  created  God — the  Word  was  the  created  and 
subordinate  God.”  This  would  not  only  have 
guarded  us  against  the  notion  of  only  one  God,  and 
of  the  proper  Divinity  of  Christ,  but  also  have 
given  some  countenance  to  the  Arian  notion  of  a plu- 
rality of  Gods,  one  supreme  and  one  subordinate. 

But  both  reason  and  religion  forbid  such  an  un- 
derstanding of  the  Sacred  Oracles.  It  is  written, 
“ Before  me  there  was  no  God  formed,  neither 
shall  there  be  after  me — besides  me  there  is  no 
God — there  is  no  God  beside  me — there  is  none 
other  God  but  one  ;”  and  yet  in  this  same  book  the 
“Word”  is  revealed  to  us  as  the  “true”  and 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


77 


“mighty  God.”  We  must  therefore  either  adopt 
the  ridiculous  notion,  that  there  are  two  Gods,  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  Scriptures,  or  admit  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  Jehovah,  the  second  person  in  the 
holy  Trinity. 

4.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Jehovah  of  the  Jewish 
Scriptures.  “ This  name,”  says  Cruden,  “ signifies 
he  who  exists  of  himself and  it  is  generally  ad- 
mitted that  it  belongs  exclusively  to  the  Supreme 
Being.  The  Scriptures  fully  settle  this  point. 
“ And  I appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and 
unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of  God  Almighty,  but  by 
my  name  Jehovah  was  I not  known  to  them.” 
“ Thou  whose  name  alone  is  Jehovah,  art  the  Most 
High  over  all  the  earth.”  “ I am  the  Lord  : (Je- 
hovah,) that  is  my  name : and  my  glory  will  I not 
give  to  another.”  “ I am  Jehovah,  and  there  is 
none  else ; there  is  no  God  besides  me.” 

But,  while  the  Scriptures  restrict  this  august  title 
to  God  alone,  they  more  than  once  apply  it  to  Jesus 
Christ.  The  original  word  translated  “ Lord” 
in  the  New  Testament,  is  the  same  used  in  the 
Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  signify 
Jehovah.  Jehovah,  in  Hebrew,  is  rendered 
Kyrios  in  Greek  ; and  Kyrios  in  Greek  is  rendered 
Lord  in  English ; so  that  Lord  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  the  same  as  Jehovah  in  the  Old.  We  may 
therefore  substitute  the  word  Jehovah  where  the 
title  “ Lord”  is  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, without  altering  the  sense  of  those  passages. 
That  the  New  Testament  writers  used  the  term 
Kyrios , or  Lord , in  this  sense,  is  certain.  Hence. 
“ Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  saved,”  is  a correct  quotation  from  Joel  ii. 
32.  “ Whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  Je- 

hovah shall  be  de  ivered.”  “ Thou,  Lord.  (Jeho- 

7* 


78 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


vah,)  hast  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth” — “ pre- 
pare ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,”  (Jehovah,) — “ say 
unto  the  cities  of  Judah,  Behold  your  God,”  (Jeho- 
vah)— “ and  this  is  the  name  whereby  he  shall  he 
called,  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  our  righteousness.” 

Now,  as  Jehovah  is  God’s  name,  and  he  alone  is 
Jehovah ; and  as  Jesus  Christ  is  Jehovah , it  follows 
that  Christ  is  the  Supreme  Being,  the  God  of  the 
spirits  of  all  flesh. 

Dr.  Waterland  says,  “if  Jehovah  signify  the 
eternal,  immutable  God,  it  is  manifest  that  the  name 
is  incommunicable , since  there  is  but  one  God  ; and 
if  the  name  be  incommunicable , then  Jehovah  can 
signify  nothing  but  that  one  God,  to  whom,  and  to 
whom  only,  it  is  applied.”  Mr.  Watson  says  of 
Christ,  “ he  is  called  Jehovah  himself,  a name  which 
the  Scriptures  give  to  no  person  whatever,  except 
to  each  of  the  sacred  Three,  who  stand  forth,  in 
the  pages  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
crowned  with  this  supreme  and  exclusive  honor  and 
eminence.” 

It  is  unnecessary  to  spend  time  in  noticing  Arian 
arguments  on  this  point,  as  they  carry  their  own  re- 
futation with  them.  All  Kin kade  says,  to  prove 
that  Christ  is  an  Archangel,  is  only  so  much  testi- 
mony that  Christ  is  God  j as  he  admits  that  Christ 
was  “the  Angel  of  the  Lord”  that  appeared  to  Mo- 
ses in  the  burning  bush,  and  we  all  know  that  this 
Angel  was  the  “ Angel  Jehovah,”  the  God  of  the 
Old  Testament.  This  is  the  opinion  of  all  the 
Trinitarian  writers  that  he  has  professed  to  quote, 
in  order  to  support  his  cause. 

Whether,  then,  we  consider  Christ  as  the  “ Son 
of  God,”  as  “ Lord,”  as  “ God,”  or  as  “ Jehovah,” 
we  have  abundant  evidence  in  the  necessary  and 
exclusive  import  of  these  terms,  that  he  is  the  se- 


DEITY  OF  CHR.ST. 


79 


cond  person  of  the  adorable  Trinity , the  eternal,  in- 
finite JEHOVAH.  One  more  argument,  in  favor  of 
the  Deity  of  Christ,  and  we  shall  dismiss  the  subject. 

X.  The  Divinity  of  Christ  follows  from  the 

FACT  THAT  HE  FORGIVES  SINS. 

1.  No  being  but  God  can  forgive  sins.  When 
Christ  said  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy, 66  Thy  sins  he 
forgiven  thee,”  the  Scribes  said,  u Who  can  forgive 
sins  but  God  only  ?”  Christ  does  not  deny  the  cor- 
rectness of  their  position  ; but  proceeds  to  convince 
them,  that  u the  Son  of  man  had  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins,”  as  if  desirous  from  their  own  premises 
to  lead  them  to  the  acknowledgment  of  his  proper 
Divinity.  To  escape  this  conclusion  is  impossible. 
No  being  but  God  can  forgive  sins;  but  Jesus 
Christ  forgave  sins ; therefore,  Jesus  Christ  is  God. 

That  Christ  forgave  sins,  is  too  plain  to  be  de- 
nied, even  by  Arians  themselves.  The  only  al- 
ternative left  them,  is,  to  deny  that  God  only  can 
pardon  the  sinner  ; and  resort  to  the  modern  inven- 
tion of  agency  and  delegation.  It  is  therefore  as- 
serted that  Christ  forgave  sins  merely  as  the  agent 
or  representative  of  the  Almighty.  The  falsity  and 
absurdity  of  this  doctrine  have  already  been  shown  ; 
but  in  respect  to  the  point  in  hand,  we  further  re- 
mark, 

(1.)  That  such  is  the  nature  of  pardon,  that  no 
being  can  forgive  offences  for  another.  If  a man 
injure  us,  we  can  forgive  him,  it  is  true ; but  no 
man  can  forgive  him  in  our  stead  ; neither  can  we 
forgive  him  so  as  to  prevent  the  adjudication  of  the 
case  by  the  Judge  of  all.  So  in  respect  to  God. 
It  is  not  possible,  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  a 
creature  should  be  authorized  to  forgive  sins. 

(2.)  This  notion  of  pardon  by  proxy,  is  another 
u mark  of  the  Beast” — a favorite  dogma  of  “ Baby- 


80 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


Ion.”  Papists  telhus,  that  God  can  appoint  a vice- 
gerent , or  representative,  to  forgive  sins,  and  that  the 
world  has  such  a delegate  in  the  person  of  the 
Pope.  They  also  allow  this  power  to  the  priest- 
hood generally.  Arianism  responds  to  the  first  of 
these  sentiments,  but  tells  us  that  this  agent  is  Jesus 
Christ  instead  of  the  Pope,  a creature,  in  their  opin- 
ion, a little  above  his  Holiness  in  some  respects. 
Now,  if  the  Arian  position  be  correct,  we  see  no 
reason  why  the  Catholics  should  not  be  correct 
also.  If  God  could  delegate  the  right  to  forgive 
sins  to  an  exalted  creature , that  creature  could  ap- 
point Peter  as  his  agent,  and  Peter  could  appoint 
his  successor ; and  it  may  be  true,  after  all,  that  the 
Pope,  and  all  his  Cardinals  and  Priests,  even  to 
Bishop  Hughes,  have  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins. 

We  must  then  either  abandon  the  notion  of  for- 
giveness by  proxy  altogether,  or  all  turn  Papists  at 
once,  and  go  over  to  the  church  of  Rome.  We 
therefore  reject  the  Arian  hypothesis  of  pardon  by 
proxy  as  an  unscriptural  and  blasphemous  assump- 
tion— the  very  quintessence  of  Popery. 

We  will  now  dismiss  this  important  point  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  bring  this  Chapter  to  a 
close.  Though  we  have  extended  these  remarks 
beyond  the  limits  proposed,  we  have  adduced  but 
a few  of  the  arguments  that  might  be  urged  in  sup- 
port of  our  position.  Neither  do  we  pretend  that 
those  selected  are  better  than  those  that  are  omitted. 
Having  determined  not  to  swell  this  volume  to  an 
immoderate  size  ; and,  knowing  that  many  unan- 
swerable sermons  on  the  Divinity  of  Christ  were 
already  before  the  public,  we  shall  rest  satisfied 
with  the  specimen  of  Scripture  and  argument  al- 
ready ad  luced  upon  this  point.  We  have  shown 


DEITY  OF  CHRIST. 


81 


that  Christ  is  the  omnipotent,  omniscient,  omni- 
present, and  eternal  Being-,  the  Creator  of  all  things 
seen  and  unseen.  We  have  proved  his  Divinity 
from  the  fact,  that  he  is  the  only  proper  object  of 
religious  worship,  and  from  Scriptures  that  neces- 
sarily imply  his  Godhead.  We  have  also  identi- 
fied him  as  u God  over  all,”  from  his  titles  of  u Son 
of  God  “ Lord  u God  and  “ Jehovah  and 
have  proved  him  to  be  the  sin-pardoning  God,  the 
only  God  revealed  in  the  Bible.  On  these  argu- 
ments we  are  willing  to  rest  our  cause,  with  all 
who  believe  the  Scriptures,  and  are  willing  to  know 
the  truth.  We  see  no  rational  middle-ground  be- 
tween rejecting  the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  denying 
the  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  If  he,  whom 
the  Scriptures  reveal  to  us  as  the  omnipotent,  om- 
niscient, omnipresent,  and  eternal  Being — the  Je- 
hovah worshipped  by  men  and  angels — the  God 
who  upholds  all  things,  forgives^  sins,  and  is  to 
judge  the  world  in  the  last  day,  is  nothing  but  a 
mere  finite  creature  of  yesterday,  a being  infinitely 
below  the  Deity ; who  can  have  any  confidence  in 
the  Bible,  or  receive  it  for  a moment  as  an  infalli- 
ble revelation  of  God’s  will  to  man  ? No  wonder 
therefore,  that  Arianism  is  the  highway  to  Deism  ; 
for  we  must  impeach  the  Bible  to  be  an  Arian.  But, 
when  we  fall  in  with  its  plain  and  obvious  mean- 
ing, all  is  clear.  The  Old  and  New  Testaments 
agree  with  each  other ; a key  is  furnished  to  un- 
lock the  Book  of  Life ; a thousand  ridiculous  no- 
tions and  absurdities  are  avoided ; the  credit  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  is  preserved ; and  angels  and  men 
are  justified  in  honoring  the  Son,  even  as  they  hon- 
or the  Father.  May  that  Eternal  u Word,”  who 
became  incarnate  to  redeem  us,  shine  on  our  hearts. 


82 


DEITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


and  open  our  eyes ; that  we  may  behold  a the  light 
of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face 
of  Jesus  Christ.” 


CHAPTER  VII. 

DEITY  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

In  the  preceding  chapters  we  have  shown  that 
there  is  but  one  living  and  true  God ; and  that 
Jesus  Christ  has  two  natures,  being  in  one  nature 
verily  and  really  man;  and  in  the  other  truly  and 
properly  God.  That  the  u Word”  or  Son  of  God 
is  a distinct  person  from  the  Father,  is  not  denied  by 
Arians.  They  not  only  admit  his  personality,  but 
push  the  distinction  so  far  as  to  make  him  a distinct 
being  from  God  ; whereas  we  maintain  that  he  is 
distinct  only  as  a person  in  the  Godhead,  and  is  con- 
sequently possessed  of  absolute  Divinity.  This  we 
think  we  have  already  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of 
every  candid  reader.  We  shall  now  proceed  to 
establish  the  third  leading  point  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  namely,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  also  is 
really  Divine  ; and  that  he  is  a distinct  person  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  On  this  point  there  is 
great  confusion  among  Arian  teachers  and  writers. 
Some  say  the  Holy  Ghost  is  one  thing  and  some 
another.  One  says  u he  is  a power,  attribute,  or 
emanation  from  God.”  Another  says  he  is  literally 
the  breath  of  God,  while  a third  informs  us  that  he 
is  God’s  soul  that  occupies  his  body  as  human  souls 
occupy  their  bodies.  Kinkade  says,  “ God’s  Spirit, 
bears  the  same  relation  to  God,  that  the  spirit  of 
man  does  to  man.”  This  is  the  prevailing  doctrine 


DEITY  OF  TE..3  SPIRIT. 


83 


on  this  point,  among  Arians.  They  hold  that  God 
has  a body  like  a,  man,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
the  soul  of  that  body ; so  that  God  is  not  a pure 
spirit  without  body  or  parts,  but  a material  being 
like  man,  having  both  soul  and  body.  In  this  they 
have  departed  a little  from  the  footsteps  of  their 
father  Arius,  and  on  this  account  they  deny  that 
they  are  Arians.  But  they  have  only  exchanged 
one  particular  error  for  another,  having,  as  it  re- 
spects the  Spirit,  abandoned  Arianism  for  Sabel- 
lianism.  Both  Arians  and  Sabellians  deny  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; the  former  by  making  the 
Son  a distinct  being  from  God,  and  a creature,  and 
the  Spirit  the  soul  of  God  ; the  latter  by  making 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  one  person , with  differ- 
ent titles  under  different  dispensations.  “ Sabellians 
taught  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are 
only  denominations  [or  names]  of  one  hypostasis  ; 
[or  person ;]  in  other  words,  that  there  is  but  one 
person  in  the  Godhead  : — that  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, God  delivered  the  law  as  Father ; under 
the  New,  dwelt  among  men,  or  was  incarnate,  as 
the  Son  : and  descended  on  the  Apostles  as  the 
Spirit.”  So  far  as  the  Spirit  is  concerned,  most 
modem  Arians  adopt  this  theory ; and  tell  us  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Father  are  one,  without 
any  distinction  of  persons.  But  while  this  senti- 
ment is  the  more  popular  one  among  Arians,  it  is 
by  no  means  universal.  While  some  admit  the 
Deity  of  the  Spirit  and  deny  his  personality ; others 
deny  both.  It  will  be  necessary,  therefore,  in  con- 
sidering this  subject,  not  only  to  show  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  God , but  that  he  is  a distinct  person  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  To  the  first  of  these  points 
we  now  invite  attention. 

I.  Our  Lord  says,  “ God  is  a Spirit and  one  of 


84 


DEITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


the  most  common  names  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is,  u the 
Spirit  of  God.”  Now  as  God  is  a Spirit,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  a Spirit,  they  must  be  of  the  same 
nature , namely,  Spirit.  But  as  God  himself  is  pure 
Spirit,  he  can  have  no  spirit  aside  from  his  own 
being  ; as  the  Spirit  of  a Spirit  cannot  exist  as  a 
distinct  substance.  The  Spirit  of  God  must  there- 
fore be  that  God  who  is  a spirit. 

The  identity  of  the  Spirit  with  the  Godhead,  is 
clearly  taught  1 Cor.  ii.  10,  11 — u For  the  Spirit 
searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep  things  of  God. 
For  what  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a man,  save 
the  spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him  1 even  so  the 
things  of  God  knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of 
God.”  From  this  text  Kinkade  attempts  to  show 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  occupies  God’s  body  as  its 
soul ! It  is  true  that  the  Apostle  illustrates  his 
views,  by  comparing  the  Spirit  of  God  with  the 
spirit  of  man  ; but  this  comparison  extends  only  to 
one  or  two  points  of  agreement  at  most.  1.  The 
Spirit  only,  knows  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  As  no 
man  fully  opens  his  heart,  and  reveals  all  “ the 
things  of  a man”  to  another,  so  “ the  things  of  God 
knoweth  no  man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God.”  2.  As 
the  Spirit  of  man  that  is  in  him,  is,  in  reality,  the 
man  ; so  the  Spirit  of  God  that  knoweth  the  things 
of  God  is  God  himself.  But  because  there  is  a 
resemblance  between  the  Spirit  and  the  human 
soul,  in  one  or  two  particulars,  it  is  inferred  that  the 
analogy  must  be  general ; and  that  God  has  a soul 
and  body  like  human  beings. 

II.  2 Cor.  iii.  16,  17 — •“  Nevertheless  when  it  (the 
heart)  shall  turn  to  the  Lord,  the  veil  shall  be  taken 
away.  Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit,  and  where  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty.”  Here  ob- 
serve, 1.  The  Lord  JehoT  ih  is  the  Being  to  whom 


DEITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


85 


the  Jews  were  to  turn.  2.  The  Spirit  spoken  of,  is 
the  Spirit  of  God,  by  which  we  are  changed  into 
the  image  of  the  Lord,  from  glory  to  glory ; verse 
18th.  3.  The  Lord  Jehovah,  to  whom  the  Jews 

were  to  turn,  and  the  Spirit  or  Holy  Ghost,  are 
one.  “ Now  the  Lord  is  that  Spirit.”  As  the  Lord 
Jehovah  is  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit  is  the  Lord  ; or  in 
other  words,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God. 

III.  Acts  xxviii.  25 — “Well  spake  the  Holy 
Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our  fathers,  say- 
ing, Go  unto  this  people  and  say,  Hearing  ye  shall 
hear,”  &c.  Now  by  turning  to  the  6th  of  Isaiah, 
from  which  Paul  quotes,  we  find  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  that  spake  by  Esaias,  was  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament.  “ And  I heard 
the  voice  of  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  saying,  Whom 
shall  I send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ? Then  said 
1,  here  am  I ; send  me.  And  he  said,  Go,  and  tell 
this  people,”  &c.  From  a comparison  of  these  pas- 
sages, it  is  certain  that  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the 
Apostle,  is  the  Lord  of  hosts  ; the  Jehovah  of  the 
Bible. 

IV.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Creator.  “ And 
the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  wa- 
ters”— “ The  Spirit  of  God  hath  made  me” — “ By 
his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens” — “ Thou 
sendest  forth  thy  Spirit,  and  they  are  created.” 
These  passages  prove  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  pos- 
sessed of  creative  power  ; and  the  Arian  must  either 
substitute  another  “ agent”  or  admit  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things. 

V.  The  Deity  of  the  Spirit  is  implied,  Matt.  xii. 
31.  “ All  manner  of  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  for- 
given unto  men ; but  the  blasphemy  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men.  And 
whosoever  speaketh  word  against  the  Son  of  man, 

8 


86  DEITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT.  * 

it  shall  be  forgiven  him,  but  whosoever  speaketh 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him, 
neither  in  this  world  nor  in  the  world  to  come.” 
Again : u He  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  in  dan- 
ger of  eternal  damnation.”  From  these  texts  we 
learn  that  to  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  an  of- 
fence so  peculiar,  and  so  aggravated  in  its  character, 
that  the  offender  finds  no  forgiveness  in  time  or  in 
eternity.  But  how  can  this  be  accounted  for,  on 
the  supposition  that  He  is  “ a power,  attribute,  or 
emanation  ?”  Is  it  so  peculiarly  dangerous  to  speak 
against  these  that  the  offender  can  find  no  pardon  ? 
The  nature  of  this  particular  sin,  and  the  penalty 
attached  to  it,  show  the  dignity  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  clearly  imply  His  supreme  Divinity. 

VI.  The  Spirit  is  omniscient.  “ The  Spirit 
searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep  things  of  God.” 
What  “ power,  attribute,  emanation”  or  being  is  ca- 
pable of  such  knowledge  but  God  only  ? 

VII.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  omnipresent.  “ Whith- 
er shall  I go  from  thy  Spirit  ? or  whither  shall  I flee 
from  thy  presence?  If  I ascend  up  into  heaven, 
thou  art  there  : if  I make  my  bed  in  hell,  behold, 
thou  art  there,”  &c.  He  reproves  the  world  of  sin, 
and  dwells  in  the  hearts  of  all  true  believers  ; and 
as  God  is  the  only  omnipresent  Being,  the  omni- 
presence of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  proof  of  his  Di- 
vinity. 

VIII.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  eternal.  u Christ, 
who,  through  the  eternal  Spirit , offered  himself,” 
&c.  God  only  is  eternal ; therefore  the  u eternal 
Spirit”  must  be  that  eternal  God,  who  is  a Spirit. 

IX.  The  words  Holy  Ghost  and  God  are  used 
synonymously  in  the  New  Testament.  “ Know  ye 
not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God:  and  that  the 


DEITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


87 


Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you?”  “ Your  body  is 
the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost ” — “ Ye  are  the  tem- 
ple of  the  living  God.v — “ Why  hath  Satan  filled 
thy  heart  to  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost  ? Thou  hast  not 
lied  unto  men,  but  unto  God  .”  “ Except  a man  be 

born — of  the  Spirit ” — “ so  is  every  one  that  is  born 
of  the  Spirit .”  “ As  many  as  received  him  were 

born — of  God  .”  “ All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspi- 

ration of  God ;” — ■“  Holy  men  of  old  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost”  “ God  shall  raise 
the  dead  ;” — “ It  is  the  Spirit  that  quicken  eth  — 
“shall  also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his 
Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you,”  &c.,  &c.  This  list 
might  be  greatly  extended ; but  the  above  passages 
are  sufficient  to  show,  that  in  the  New  Testament 
and  the  terms  “ God ” “ Holy  Ghost ” are  interchanged, 
as  signifying  the  same  Divine  person. 

X.  Paul  says,  2 Cor.  iii.  5 — “ But  our  suffi- 
ciency is  of  God,  who  also  hath  made  us  able  min- 
isters of  the  New  Testament.” — Now,  we  learn 
from  the  13th  chap,  of  Acts,  that  this  God,  who 
made  these  ministers,  was  the  Holy  Ghost.  “ As 
they  ministered  to  the  Lord  and  fasted,  the  Holy 
Ghost  said,  “Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for 
the  work  whereunto  I have  called  them ; — so  they 
being  sent  forth  by  the  Holy  Ghost , departed.”  The 
conclusion  from  these  passages  is,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  who  called  Paul  and  Barn  alias  to  the  minis- 
try, is  the  God  by  whom  they  were  made  minis- 
ters. 

XI.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  recognized  by  the  Apos- 
tles as  possessing  sovereign  and  absolute  authority 
over  the  Church.  Hence  he  called  and  sent  forth 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  as  stated  in  the  above  texts ; 
and  is  referred  to  as  the  Ruler  of  the  Church,  and 
the  person  who  appointed  her  officers.  “ For  it 


88 


DEITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT. 


seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,  to  lay 
upon  you  no  greater  burthen  than  these  necessary 
things  — “ Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves, 
and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
hath  made  you  overseers.”  Now,  the  Scriptures 
represent  the  Church  as  “ the  Church  of  God,”  and 
her  ministry  as  those  who  are  “ called  of  God , as 
was  Aaron.”  We  must  therefore  recognize  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  the  God  of  the  Christian  Church. 

The  substance  of  the  testimony  upon  this  point 
may  be  thus  briefly  summed  up.  We  pray  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  to  the  Father  and  Son,  in 
the  Apostolic  benediction.  We  are  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Ghost — comforted  by  the  Holy 
Ghost — converted  and  sanctified  by  him — led  by 
the  Spirit,  and  are  to  be  raised  by  him  in  the  last 
day.  He  is  of  the  substance  of  God,  “a  Spirit” — 
the  God  to  whom  the  Jews  were  to  turn — the  God 
who  sent  Isaiah— the  omniscient,  omnipresent,  and 
Eternal  Spirit — the  Creator  of  all  things — the  God 
that  dwells  in  believers — the  God  to  whom  Ana- 
nias lied — the  God  who  inspired  “holy  men  of 
old” — the  God  by  whom  Paul  was  made  a minis- 
ter— the  God  insulted  in  the  commission  of  the  un- 
pardonable sin — the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  the  God  and  Governor  of  the  Christian 
Church.  We  therefore  acknowledge  him  as  one 
of  the  “ three  that  bear  record  in  heaven  ;”  of  one 
substance,  majesty,  and  glory  with  the  Father,  and 
the  Son,  very  and  eternal  God. 


THE  HOLY  GHOST  A DISTINCT  PERSON.  89 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  HOLY  GHOST  A DISTINCT  PERSON  FROM  THE 
FATHER. 

Having  established  the  proper  Divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  he 
is  a distinct  person  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  It 
will  be  recollected,  that  one  class  of  Arians  admit 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God,  but  deny  his  person- 
ality. They  maintain  that  he  is  God’s  soul,  dwell- 
ing in  a body  in  the  shape  of  man — a doctrine 
which  we  have  elsewhere  identified  as  a species 
of  Sabellianism,  and  which  need  not  here  be  recon- 
sidered. 

Before  we  proceed  to  argue  the  subject  of  this 
chapter,  it  may  be  necessary  again  to  remind  the 
reader  of  the  sense  in  which  we  use  the  term  per- 
son, as  we  apply  it  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  By  person 
we  do  not  mean  body , as  do  Arians,  or  a human 
being ; but  simply  one  of  the  three  that  bear  re- 
cord in  heaven.  We  mean  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
a person  as  the  Father  and  Word  are  persons  ; and 
that  these  three  Divine  persons  constitute  the  one 
Eternal  Being,  the  God  of  heaven  and  earth.  For 
further  remarks  upon  this  point,  see  Chapter  II. 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  personality  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  In  doing  so  we  shall  not  only 
oppose  the  notion  that  he  is  a mere  attribute  or 
power  ; but  also  the  still  more  absurd  one  that  he  is 
the  soul  of  God.  His  distinct  personality  appears 
from  the  following  considerations  : — 

I.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  a mind  or  intelligence. 
u And  he  that  searcheth  the  heart,  knoweth  what  is 
the  mind  of  the  Sumt.”  Here  the  term  u mind ” is 
8* 


90  THE  HOLY  GHOST  A DISTINCT  PERSON. 

used  to  denote  an  intellectual  state,  as  will,  purpose, 
or  inclination ; which  state  could  not  exist,  unless 
the  spirit  was  a mind.  But  as  it  is  impossible  for 
mind  to  exist  without  personality,  the  Holy  Ghost 
must  he  a person. 

II.  The  Spirit  has  intelligence  or  knowledge. 
u For  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep 
things  of  God  ; the  things  of  God  knoweth  no 
man  but  the  Spirit  of  God.”  This  text  shows  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  “ knows ” the  things  of  God,  as 
perfectly  as  the  soul  of  man  knows  the  things  of 
man.  Searching  and  knowing  are  indubitable  evi- 
dences of  intelligence  ; and,  as  there  can  he  no  in- 
telligence without  personality,  it  follows  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  not  a mere  attribute  or  power,  but  an 
intelligent  or  distinct  person. 

III.  The  Holy  Ghost  has  a will . u But  all  these 
worketh  that  one  and  the  self-same  Spirit,  dividing 
to  every  man  severally  as  he  will”  If  an  “ organ,” 
“ energy,”  “ power,”  or  “ attribute,”  can  have  a will , 
this  text  is  of  no  force  in  our  cause  ; but  if  they 
cannot,  and  if  will  always  implies  personality,  then 
the  Holy  Ghost  cannot  be  any  of  these,  merely, 
but  is  a knowing,  self-willing  person. 

IV.  The  Scriptural  distinction  between  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  the  Father,  is  as  clear  as  between  the 
Son  and  the  Father.  “ The  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  he  with  you  all.  Amen.”  Here 
the  Spirit  is  mentioned  as  distinct  from  the  Father 
and  Son ; and,  on  either  of  the  modern  Arian  hy- 
potheses, the  text  must  not  only  he  unmeaning,  hut 
a specimen  of  the  most  flagrant  tautology.  Mil- 
lard says,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a personified  something. 
If  so,  the  meaning  of  the  benediction  is,  u The 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  (a  creature ,)  and  the 


THE  HOLY  GHOST  A DISTINCT  PERSON.  91 


love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  an  £ attribute, 
power,  energy,  organ,’  or  something  else,  be  with 
you  all.  Amen.”  What  a benediction ! The 
grace  of  a “ creature ,”  and  the  communion  of  a per- 
sonified “ organ ! !” 

But  Kinkade  makes  it  still  worse.  His  theory  is, 
that  Christ  is  a creature , and  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
soul  of  “ God’s  body.”  According  to  his  theory, 
we  should  read,  “ The  grace  of  the  £ first  creature 
that  was  born  into  existence,7  the  love  of  the  £ body 
of  God,7  and  the  communion  of  £ his  soul]  be  with 
you  all.  Amen!”  A real  Arian  blessing!  Nor 
can  these  sickening  absurdities  be  avoided  by  any 
theory  that  denies  the  Deity  of  Christ,  and  the  per- 
sonality and  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Again — “ Go,  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Millard  would 
say,  “ In  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  a creature, 
and  of  a personified  attribute  ;”  and  Kinkade  and 
Perry,  “ In  the  name  of  the  body  of  God  ; a crea- 
ture; and  the  soul  of  God.”  Sabellianism  proper 
would  say,  “ In  the  name  of  God,  and  of  God,  and 
of  God  ;”  as  it  teaches  that  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  are  one  Divine  person. 

W e have  the  same  proof  from  the  apostolic  bene- 
diction, that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a distinct  person 
from  the  Father,  that  we  have  of  the  personality 
of  the  Son.  When  a certain  Arian  minister  was 
urged  to  explain  this  matter,  and  show  why  these 
three  titles  were  used  in  this  connection,  if  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  the  soul  of  the  Father,  he  replied,  “ Be- 
cause they  are  the  three  greatest  names  in  the 
Christian  dispensation ! ! !77  Now,  we  wonder  not 
that  his  answer  was  so  vague  and  unmeaning,  but 
that  he  was  able  to  give  any  answer  at  all ; for  it 


92  THE  HOLY  GHOST  A DISTINCT  PERSON. 

is  certain  that  no  reason  can  be  assigned  why  the 
Holy  Ghost  should  be  distinguished  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  in  the  apostolic  benediction  and  bap- 
tismal formula,  except  that  he  is  an  equally  distinct 
person  in  the  Godhead. 

Y.  The  same  arguments  that  are  used  by  Arians 
to  prove  that  Christ  is  a distinct  being  from  God, 
may  be  adduced  to  show  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a 
distinct  person.  It  is  often  remarked  that  God  gave 
his  Son — sent  his  Son,  &c. ; and  is  then  asked,  with 
an  air  of  triumph,  u Did  God  give  himself  and  send 
himself?”  That  these  circumstances  prove  Christ 
to  be.  a distinct  person  from  the  Father,  we  admit  ; 
but  they  do  not  prove  him  to  be  a distinct  being. 
But  do  not  the  same  circumstances  prove  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Spirit?  Our  “heavenly  Father”  is 
to  give  his  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him and 
Peter  says,  “ the  Holy  Ghost”  was  u sent  down  from 
heaven.”  Paul  says,  God  has  “ given  the  earnest 
of  the  Spirit ;”  and  the  disciples  had  the  promise, 
that  the  Comforter  should  be  sent.  Now  we  ask, 
in  turn,  Did  the  Father  give  himself?  or,  Did  he 
send  himself?  Was  it  the  Father  that  was  poured 
out  on  the  day  of  Pentecost? 

So  sure,  then,  as  Christ  is  a distinct  person  from 
the  Father,  so  sure  the  Holy  Ghost  is  also  ; and,  if 
Arians  would  be  consistent  with  themselves,  they 
would  not  only  call  him  a distinct  person , but  a dis- 
tinct being — perhaps  a “ creature ,”  and  an  “ agent.” 

VI.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  represented  as  being  sub- 
ject to  the  Son  ; as  the  Son  is  subject  to  the  Father, 
in  his  official  character  in  the  work  of  redemption. 
u If  I go  not  away,”  said  Jesus,  “ the  Comforter  will 
not  come  unto  you  ; but  if  I depart,  I will  send  him 
\mto  you.”  “ But  when  the  Comforter  is  come, 
whom  I will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even 


THE  HOLY  GHOST  A DISTINCT  PERSON.  93 

the  Spirit  of  Truth  which  proceedeth  from  the  Fa* 
ther,  he  shall  testify  of  me.”  “ But  the  Comforter, 
which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will 
send  in  my  name , he  shall  teach  you  all  things.” 
u I will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  will  give  you  an- 
other Comforter,”  &c. 

How  can  these  passages  be  reconciled  with  the 
notion  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  Father?  or  the 
soul  of  a material  God  ? Did  a creature  send  the 
Father  into  the  world  “ from  the  Father  ?”  or  did 
the  Father  send  himself  in  the  name  of  a creature? 
Did  a creature  pray  to  God  to  send  his  soul  into  the 
world,  and  leave  his  forsaken  body  literally  seated 
on  a throne,  to  receive  the  homage  of  angels? 
How  must  this  theory  distort  the  word  of  God,  even 
in  the  minds  of  Arians  themselves.  It  is  revolting 
to  all  piety,  to  contemplate  its  absurdities.  What 
confusion  and  embarrassment  attend  on  Arianism 
at  every  step  ! No  wonder  its  votaries  often  meet 
each  other  in  open  hostility,  when  once  they  enter 
its  dark  labyrinths. 

From  the  above  passages,  it  is  clear  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  a distinct  person  from  the  Father;  and  is 
sent  from  the  Father  by  the  Son ; or  by  the  Father  in 
the  name  of  Christ. 

VII.  The  personal  acts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  prove 
him  to  be  a person.  The  Spirit  “ searcheth  all 
things” — “ hnoweth ” ihe  deep  things  of  God — exer- 
cises his  “ will ” in  distributing  spiritual  gifts — “ com- 
munes” with  the  saints — is  “given”  by  the  Father, 
and  “sent”  into  the  world — “spake”  by  Esaias — 
beareth  “ witness” — makes  “ intercession” — “ testifies” 
of  Christ — is  “ grieved” — “ moved”  the  Prophets  to 
write — created  all  things — ■“  made”  the  Apostles  min- 
isters and  overseers,  and  consequently  governs  the 
Church — “ reproves”  the  world  of  sin — converts  sin- 


94  THE  HOLY  GHOST  A DISTINCT  PERSON. 

ners — sanctifies  believers — comjorts  the  afflicted — 
covenants  with  believers  in  baptism,  and  raises  the 
dead.  These  acts  as  clearly  imply  the  personality 
of  the  Spirit,  as  they  imply  his  existence. 

But  it  is  replied,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  'personified , 
as  inanimates  objects  are  personified  in  figurative 
language.  Even  Kinkade  takes  this  ground  with 
strange  inconsistency.  In  one  part  of  his  book  he 
says,  66  God’s  Spirit  is  mentioned  to  signify  God’s 
self.  By  vexing  the  Lord’s  Holy  Spirit,  they  vexed 
the  Lord,  therefore  the  Lord’s  Spirit  was  the  Lord. 
God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  the  same  person. — 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  something  more  than  a mere 
quality,  it  is  real  being,  and  yet  not  a distinct  per- 
son from  the  Father.”  See  “ Thoughts  on  the  Holy 
Spirit.” 

After  arguing  for  seven  pages  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  Father,  without  any  distinction  of  per- 
sons, he  suddenly  shifts  his  ground,  and  denies  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  a person ! “ Some  suppose,” 

says  he,  “ that  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  called  a 
witness,  it  must  therefore  be  a person.  If  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  a person,  he  must  be  inferior  to  Christ,  be- 
cause he  [Christ]  had  power  to  send  him.  If  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  the  Father  are  one,  and  the  self- 
same Being,  I cannot  see  how  he,  as  a person,  could 
proceed  from  him.”  In  this  passage,  Mr.  K.  vir- 
tually denies  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a person. 
He  believes  him  to  be  “something  more  than  a 
mere  quality,”  a “ a real  being ” — the  soul  of  God, 
and  really  God ; and  yet  he  is  not  a person.  But 
as  Mr.  K.  always  uses  the  term  person  in  the  Arian 
sense  ; that  is,  to  signify  body ; the  mystery  is  ex- 
plained. His  meaning  is,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
not  a body ; or,  in  other  words,  that  God  has  not 
tw:  todies. 


THE  HOLY  GHOST  A HST1NCT  PERSON.  95 

Leaving  this  rickety  hypothesis  to  fall  to  pieces 
of  its  own  weight,  we  dwell  for  a moment  on  one 
more  feature,  and  close  this  chapter. 

We  deny  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  invested  with 
the  attributes  of  an  intelligent  person  by  personifica- 
tion. To  show  that  objects  are  thus  invested  in 
figurative  language,  is  a useless  task,  as  no  one 
denies  it.  But  let  it  he  proved  that  this  is  the  case 
in  one  instance  where  the  acts  of  the  Spirit  are  men- 
tioned. If  these  acts  are  only  ascribed  to  the  Spirit 
figuratively,  then  of  course  they  were  never  really 
performed.  The  works  of  conviction,  conversion, 
sanctification,  and  resurrection,  must  then  be  mere 
figurative  representations.  If  this  he  true,  the 
whole  Bible  is  an  allegory,  and  we  may  deny  the 
literal  reality  of  any  thing  and  every  thing  in  the 
whole  range  of  Christianity  itself.  All  that  would 
be  left  for  us,  would  be  a figurative  conversion, 
sanctification,  salvation,  God,  heaven,  and  hell ! 
Such  are  the  legitimate  fruits  of  the  Arian  theory. 

But  we  turn  with  delight  from  these  bewildering 
vagaries,  to  the  sober  realities  of  the  Bible.  A 
doctrine  that  cannot  stand  by  the  plain  and  explicit 
declarations  of  that  Holy  Book,  without  the  aid  of 
a licentious  criticism,  is  unworthy  of  God,  and 
dangerous  to  man.  But,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  is  there 
revealed  to  us  as  a searching,  knowing,  willing, 
speaking,  creating,  convicting,  converting,  and  sanc- 
tifying mind,  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
his  personality  is  as  obvious  as  that  of  the  Father. 
We  therefore  regard  him,  not  as  an  imaginary  be- 
ing, existing  only  in  poetic  conception  ; but  as  an 
acting,  knowing,  converting,  and  sanctifying  Spirit, 
really  and  personally  existing.  May  the  Holy  Ghost 
be  merciful  to  such  as  deny  his  personal  and  real 
existence  ; and  may  he  so  lift  the  veil  from  off  their 


96 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


hearts,  as  to  convince  them  of  their  error  and  unbe- 
lief ; lead  them  to  embrace  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Christ ; and  enable  them  to  go  on  full  of  faith  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  their  lives’  end. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 

In  the  early  part  of  this  work  we  proved  the 
absolute  unity  of  the  Divine  Being — a unity  that 
utterly  precludes  the  possibility  of  more  than  one 
God.  We  were  also  particular  to  show  that  while 
Arians  deny  the  proper  unity  of  God,  by  holding  to 
two  Divinities,  we  acknowledge  but  one  God,  while 
we  hold  that  this  one  God  exists  as  three  persons. 
By  person  we  do  not  mean  a distinct  and  indepen- 
dent being , as  we  have  elsewhere  shown,  but  merely 
one  of  those  distinctions  in  the  Godhead  that  are 
revealed  to  us  as  Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Ghost. 
In  this  sense  we  proved  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  a 
person,  and  also  established  his  Divinity.  We  had 
previously  shown  that  Christ  had  two  natures,  in 
one  of  which  he  was  man ; and  that  in  his  higher 
and  pre-existent  nature  he  was  verily  and  really 
God.  These  two  main  points,  then,  we  consider  as 
fully  established  in  the  preceding  pages. 

I.  That  there  is  but  one  living  and  true  God ; and 

II.  That  while  the  Scriptures  insist  upon  one  God 
only,  they  reveal  three  distjnct  persons,  of  one 
substance , power , and  eternity  ; and  invested  with  every 
characteristic  and  attribute  of  Supreme  Divinity. 

Neither  of  these  positions  can  be  abandoned, 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


97 


unless  we  abandon  the  Word  of  God.  They  must 
therefore  be  reconciled ; and  in  order  to  this  we  are 
obliged  to  conclude  that  these  three  Divine  persons — 
the  Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Ghost — co-exist  in  a 
manner  incomprehensible  to  mortals , as  one  supreme 
and  everlasting  God.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  And  how  can  we  reject  it,  so  long  as  we 
believe  the  Scriptures  ? Can  we  deny  the  unity  ? 
The  Bible  says  there  is  but  one  God.  Can  we  deny 
the  plurality  ? The  Bible  teaches  the  Divinity  of 
the  Son,  and  the  personality  and  Divinity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  What,  then,  can  we  do  but  believe 
in  a Trinity  ? or  that  these  three  Divine  persons 
constitute  the  one  infinite  and  eternal  Being. 

Solid  as  are  the  premises  from  which  this  conclu- 
sion is  drawn,  we  are  not  without  further  proofs  of 
a plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  To  these 
additional  evidences  we  now  invite  attention. 

I.  The  Scriptures  speak  in  a number  of  places 
of  the  “ Godhead” — a title  of  Deity  which  of  itself 
conveys  an  idea  of  plurality  as  well  as  of  unity. 
“ We  ought  not  to  think  the  Godhead  is  like  unto 
gold” — “ Even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead” — 
w In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead.” 
Now  if  this  title  is  not  used  to  represent  the  Divine 
Being,  as  distinguished  from  either  of  the  persons 
which  constitute  the  Deity,  why  not  use  the  term 
Father,  or  God,  instead  of  Godhead?  Does  not 
this  title  convey  an  idea  of  plurality,  even  to  the 
minds  of  Arians  themselves?  and  is  not  this  the 
reason  why  they  seldom  or  never  use  the  term  ? 

II.  u In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens 
and  the  earth.”  On  this  passage  an  eminent  critic 
observes,  u The  very  first  name  in  the  Scriptures 
under  which  the  Divine  Being  is  introduced  to  us 
is  a plural  one.”  Dr.  A.  Clark  says,  u The  original 

9 


98 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


word  is  certainly  in  the  'plural,  form,  and  has  long 
been  supposed  by  the  most  eminent,  learned,  and 
pious  men,  to  imply  a plurality  of  persons  in  the 
Divine  Nature.” 

III.  “ And  God  said,  let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,  after  our  likeness.”  Here  the  pronouns 
u us”  and  u our”  show  that  there  is  a plurality  of 
persons  in  the  one  Divine  Being . Mr.  Millard  says, 
“ the  plurality  of  these  expressions  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  more  than  two,  and  as  God  made  all 
things  by  Jesus  Christ,  [alluding  to  the  agency 
scheme,]  it  appears  evident  to  me  that  it  was  the 
Son  to  whom  he  spake.”  Mr.  Perry  endorses  his 
opinion.  Kinkade  accounts  for  these  plural  expres- 
sions and  titles  by  supposing  that  God  imitated  the 
dignitaries  of  earth  in  saying  us , our , we,  &c.  He 
sa}rs, u In  Hebrew,  as  well  as  in  ail  other  languages,  a 
King,  an  Emperor,  or  any  other  person  of  great  dig- 
nity, is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  plural  number. 
Thus,  the  King  of  Spain  says,  6 We,  Ferdinand  the 
Seventh .J  The  King  of  France  says,  LWe,  Charles 
the  Tenth ? The  Emperors  of  Russia  say,  i We,  Alex- 
ander,’  or  ‘ We,  Nicholas .’  ” According  to  this  ex- 
positor, then,  the  Almighty  has  anticipated  the  re- 
finements of  earthly  courts,  and  has  followed  the  prac- 
tice of  kings,  thousands  of  years  before  this  practice 
was  in  vogue.  Such  an  argument  needs  no  refuta- 
tion. But  Mr.  M.’s  scheme  is  equally  exceptionable. 

1.  The  creation  of  man  is  represented  as  the 
work  of  all  the  persons  indicated  by  the  term  u usP 
u Let  us  make  man,”  not  u do  thou,  my  agent,  make 
man.”  To  say  that  only  one  of  these  persons  was 
engaged  in  the  work,  is  to  contradict  the  text. 

2.  Man  was  to  be  made  in  the  image  of  all  these 
persons.  u Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,”  &c. 
Mr.  M.  admits  that  there  were  two  persons,  namely 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


99 


the  Father  and  the  Son  ; though  Kinkade  says 
there  was  but  one.  Now  as  the  image  of  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son  is  expressly  stated  to  be  “ the 
image  of  God,”  it  follows  that  these  persons  are 
God ; or  there  is  a plurality  of  persons  in  the  God- 
head. The  same  conclusion  follows  from  another 
view  of  the  text.  If  a plurality  of  persons  made 
man — as  the  Scriptures  affirm  by  the  use  of  the 
term  “ us” — and  God  made  man,  as  is  expressly 
declared  ; it  follows  that  God  exists  in  a plurality 
of  persons. 

IV.  “ And  the  Lord  God  said,  behold  the  man  is 
become  as  one  of  us,  to  know  good  from  evil.”  If 
there  be  not  a plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
why  say,  “like  one  of  us  ?” 

V.  “ Go  to,  let  us  go  down  and  there  confound 
their  language.”  On  this  text  observe,  1.  More  per- 
sons than  one  came  down ; u Let  us  go  down.” 
2.  When  these  Divine  persons  came  down,  they 
were  nothing  more  or  less  than  Jehovah  himself ; 
for  it  is  written,  “ The  Lord  came  down  to  see  the 
city — the  Lord  did  there  confound  their  language.” 
Now  as  there  was  a plurality  of  persons  that  came 
down,  and  these  persons  were  “ the  Lord  it  fol- 
lows that  there  is  a plurality  of  persons  in  the  God- 
head ; or  that  the  one  God  of  the  Bible  exists  in  a 
plurality  of  persons. 

But  while  one  class  of  Scriptures  reveal  a.  plural- 
ity in  the  Godhead,  without  definitely  showing  the 
extent  of  that  plurality,  another  class  reveals  a plu- 
rality, and  restricts  it  to  three;  identifying  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  as  the  three  Divine 
persons  of  the  Godhead.  Some  of  these  passages 
will  now  be  considered. 

VI.  In  the  6th  chapter  of  Isaiah,  the  Prophet 
speaks  of  a vision  in  which  he  had  seen  “ the  King, 


100 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


the  Lord  of  hosts.”  At  the  8th  verse  he  says,  u I 
heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  saying,  whom  shall  I 
send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ? Then  said  I,  here 
am  I,  send  me.  And  he  said,  go  and  tell  this  peo- 
ple, Hear  ye  indeed  but  understand  not ; and  see  ye 
indeed  but  perceive  not.  Make  the  heart  of  this 
people  fat,  and  make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their 
eyes ; lest  they  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with 
their  ears,  and  understand  with  their  hearts,  and 
convert  and  be  healed.”  On  this  passage  we  offer 
the  following  observations  : 

1.  There  was  but  one  Being  that  sent  Isaiah, 
and  that  Being  was  “ the  Lord  of  hosts.” 

2.  In  this  one  Being , there  is  a 'plurality  of  per- 
sons. u Whom  shall  I send,  and  who  will  go  for 
us  V Here,  then,  both  the  unity  and  plurality  of  the 
Godhead  are  distinctly  revealed. 

3.  That  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  were 
present,  as  constituting  u the  Lord  of  hosts,”  can 
be  easily  proved.  That  the  Father  was  included, 
no  one  will  deny.  In  the  12th  chapter  of  John, 
the  above  message  delivered  to  Isaiah  is  quoted ; 
verse  40th ; after  which  it  is  said,  u These  things 
said  Esaias,  when  he  saw  his  glory,  and  spake  of 
him:  Nevertheless,  among  the  chief  rulers  also 
many  believed  on  himf  but  u did  not  confess  himf 
&c.  Here  the  pronouns  “ his”  and  u him ” refer  to 
Christ  as  their  antecedent,  as  any  one  can  see  who 
will  read  verses  36  and  42  inclusive.  “ These  things 
spake  Jesus ” — “ spake  of  him ” — “ believed  on  Am” 
— “ did  not  confess  him”  &c.  We  have  then  this 
clear  proof,  that  the  Lord  of  hosts,  whose  glory 
Isaiah  saw,  and  of  whom  he  spake,  was  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ; or  that  the  Son  was  present  as  one 
person  in  the  Godhead. 

4.  That  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  third  person  in  the 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOP. 


101 


Trinity,  was  also  present,  appears  from  Acts  xxviii. 
25.  “ Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the 
prophet  unto  our  fathers,  saying,  Go  unto  this  peo- 
ple and  say,  Hearing  ye  shall  hear,”  &c.,  repeating 
the  same  message  that  God  gave  to  Isaiah  in  the 
above  vision.  Here  the  message  of  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  is  said  to  have  been  the  speech  of  the  Holy 
Gnost.  Of  course,  then,  the  Holy  Ghost  was  pre- 
sent also  on  this  memorable  occasion. 

We  have  then  direct  proof  from  the  word  of 
Gtad,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  were 
together  engaged  in  securing  an  ambassador,  and 
sending  this  message  to  ancient  Israel ; and  that 
these  three  Divine  persons  constituted  the  one 
“ Lord  of  hosts”  mentioned  by  Isaiah.  Hence  the 
expression,  66  Whom  shall  I,”  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
u send ; and  who  will  go  for  us” — Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost.  Well  might  adoring  Seraphim 
salute  this  triune  Lord  and  give  equal  honor  to 
each  of  the  Divine  persons,  as  they  cried  u Holy, 
Holy,  Holy  is  the  Lord  of  hosts ; the  whole  earth 
is  full  of  his  glory.”  Let  us  imitate  the  example 
of  these  celestial  worshippers ; and  while  they  as- 
cribe equal  glory,  majesty,  and  dominion,  to  each 
of  the  Divine  persons,  as  constituting  the  one  Lord 
of  hosts ; let  us  on  earth  respond  to  the  glorious 
sentiment,  and  render  our  tribute  of  feebler  praise 
as  we  sing, 

u Hail ! Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 

One  God  in  persons  three  ; 

Of  thee  we  joyful  make  our  boast, 

And  homage  pay  to  thee.” 

VII.  “ For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  these  three  are  one.”  In  reply  to  this  strong 
9* 


102 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


text,  Arians  generally  deny  that  it  is  a portion  of  the 
word  of  God.  Kinkade  and  Millard  deny  its  genu- 
ineness, the  former  saying,  “ I have  no  doubt  but  the 
passage  is  an  interpolation  and  the  latter,  with  an 
air  of  triumph,  “ Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  Methodist 
commentator,  gives  up  the  passage  as  spurious.” 
Mark  the  expression, u the  Methodist  commentator,”  at 
if  the  Methodists  had  hut  one  commentator,  and  he 
was  decidedly  against  them.  But  supposing  it  were 
so,  what  then  ? Are  we  bound  to  follow  Dr.  Clarke 
or  any  other  man,  as  an  infallible  interpreter  ? We 
acknowledge  him  as  a great  and  good  man — we 
learn  all  we  can  from  his  excellent  writings ; hut 
after  all,  it  is  the  right  of  every  Protestant  Chris- 
tian, to  read  the  Bible  and  think  for  himself ; and 
in  the  exercise  of  this  right  we  become  Trinita- 
rians. As  a denomination  the  Methodists  have 
never  received  Clarke’s  views  of  the  Sonship,  or 
of  the  foreknowledge  of  God  ; and  we  are  far  from 
adopting  his  opinion  respecting  the  above  text.  It 
is  true  that  some  modern  writers,  on  the  subject  of 
the  Trinity,  do  not  urge  this  text  in  proof  of  their 
doctrine.  But  this  is  not  because  they  think  it 
spurious.  They  know  it  to  be  a disputed  text,  and, 
like  Dr.  Clarke,  feel  that  they  have  proof  enough 
without  it.  But  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  give 
it  up  as  a forgery,  simply  because  Dr.  Clarke  does. 
The  substance  of  Kinkade’s  “ reasons”  for  rejecting 
this  passage,  is,  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Clarke  ; a dis- 
covery which  Mr.  K.  says  was  made  in  the  East  by 
Mr.  Buchanan  ; a note  in  the  “ improved,”  or  Arian 
version  of  the  New  Testament ; and  the  expulsion 
of  the  text  from  the  Campbellite  New  Testament, 
another  Arian  work.  This  last  is  mentioned  as  a 
mere  translation  by  Campbell,  (not  Alexander,) 
Doddridge,  and  McNight ; which  has  been  reprinted 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD.  103 

by  Alexander  Campbell  of  Virginia.  The  fact 
seems  to  be,  that  u Campbell,  Doddridge  and 
McNight’7  never  published  any  joint  translation  of 
the  New  Testament ; that  A.  Campbell  has  given 
his  version  to  the  world,  as  the  work  of  these  men  ; 
and  that  instead  of  its  being  a “ reprint”  of  their 
version,  it  is  almost  exclusively  his  own  perform- 
ance. But  to  return:  If  the  genuineness  of  the 
above  text  is  to  depend  on  the  opinion  of  commen- 
tators, we  must  consult  others  besides  Dr.  Clarke ; 
and  see  if  the  scales  may  not  be  balanced  in  its 
favor. 

1.  Rev.  Richard  Watson  says,  “ The  recent  re- 
vival of  the  inquiry  into  the  genuineness  of  this 
text,  however,  shows  that  the  point  is  far  from  be- 
ing critically  settled  against  the  passage  as  a true 
portion  of  Holy  Writ,  and  the  argument  from  the 
context  is  altogether  in  favor  of  those  who  advo- 
cate it” 

2.  Dr.  Thomas  Coke  says  : — “ The  anti-trini- 
tarian heretic  trembles  at  this  passage  ; it  is  a thun- 
derstroke to  him,  of  which  he  well  knows  the 
weight ; therefore  he  leaves  no  means  untried  to 
turn  it  aside,  or  to  avoid  it.  The  chief  mode  has 
been  to  deny  that  the  text  was  written  by  St.  John  ; 
and  under  pretence  that  it  does  not  appear  in  all 
the  ancient  manuscripts  of  this  Epistle,  and  that 
some  of  the  fathers  who  formerly  wrote  against  the 
Arians,  did  not  avail  themselves  of  it  in  proof  of 
Christ’s  Divinity,  the  heretics  of  the  present  day 
deny  the  authenticity  of  the  text.  But  the  cause 
must  be  very  desperate  which  can  allege  no  better 
reasons  against  the  strength  and  evidence  of  a text 
of  Scripture.  For,  to  give  any  force  to  such  an  ar- 
gument, it  would  be  necessary  to  show,  that  the 
passage  in  question  existed  but  in  very  few  manu 


104 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


scripts,  or  at  least,  only  in  those  of  a modern  date, 
and  of  small  authority,  and  that  it  was  unknown  in 
all  Christian  antiquity ; hut  the  fact  is,  that  this 
passage  is  found  in  a great  number  of  manuscripts, 
and  those  the  most  ancient ; and  is  quoted  in  books 
of  the  most  venerable  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  and 
all  much  older  than  those  manuscripts  that  do  not 
contain  the  passage.  But  not  to  mention  St.  Je- 
rome, who  found  it  in  the  Greek  manuscript  of  the 
New  Testament,  from  which  he  made  his  Latin 
versions,  in  which  we  find  it  also,  and  a long  com- 
ment upon  it  in  his  Preface  to  the  canonical  Epis- 
tles ; we  find  it  cited  in  proof  of  the  Trinity  in 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  presented  about  the  end  of 
the  fifth  century  by  the  bishops  of  the  African 
churches  to  Huneric  king  of  the  Vandals,  an 
Arian,  and  a great  persecutor  of  the  orthodox  de- 
fenders of  the  Trinity.  Now,  would  it  not  have 
been  the  most  unexampled  piece  of  imprudence  in 
those  bishops,  purposely  to  expose  themselves  to  the 
rage  of  Huneric,  and  of  all  the  Arian  party,  by  al- 
ledging in  so  solemn  a piece  as  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  this  passage  of  St.  John,  if  it  had  not  been 
universally  extant  in  all  the  manuscripts  of  the 
day,  or  if  it  had  been  forged  ? Doubtless  the  Arian 
would  sufficiently  have  triumphed  in  such  a dis- 
covery ; and  it  is  clear,  that  nothing  but  the  truth 
and  notoriety  of  the  facts  could  have  silenced  those 
heretics.  Neither  could  the  citation  of  the  passage 
at  that  time  have  been  regarded  as  a new  thing,  or 
of  doubtful  authority ; for  it  was  more  than  250 
years  before,  that  St.  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage, 
and  a celebrated  martyr,  who  flourished  but  a little 
more  than  a hundred  years  before  John,  had  quoted 
it  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Unity  of  the  Church  ; and 
all  the  printed  editions  of  Cyprian’s  works,  as  well 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


105 


as  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  of  that  father  of  the 
Church,  constantly  contain  that  citation,  which  is  a 
certain  mark  of  its  authenticity.  Lastly,  to  go  still 
farther  back,  we  find  Tertu Ilian,  who  was  before 
St.  Cyprian,  mentioning  it  in  his  dispute  against 
Praxeas.  Now,  since  nothing  reasonable  can  be 
objected  against  a passage  quoted  by  such  celebrated 
writers,  one  of  whom  is  Tertullian,  who  flourished 
towards  the  conclusion  of  the  very  same  century  in 
which  St.  John  died,  it  is  a certain  proof  that  these 
words  were  extant  in  the  very  first  manuscripts.” 

3.  Rev.  John  Wesley  was  fully  satisfied  of  the 
genuineness  of  this  text.  He  says,  “ What  Ben- 
gelius  has  advanced,  both  concerning  the  transposi- 
tion of  these  two  verses,  and  the  authority  of  the 
controverted  verse,  will  abundantly  satisfy  any  im- 
partial reader.”  He  calls  Bengelius  u the  most  pi- 
ous, the  most  judicious,  the  most  laborious,  of  all 
modern  commentators  on  the  New  Testament.” 
u For  some  years,”  says  Mr.  Wesley,  “ he  stood  in 
doubt  of  its  authenticity,  because  it  is  wanting  in 
many  of  the  ancient  copies.  But  his  doubts  were 
removed  by  three  considerations : — 1st.  That  though 
it  is  wanting  in  many  copies,  yet  it  is  found  in  more, 
and  those  copies  of  the  greatest  authority.  2d.  It 
is  cited  by  a whole  train  of  ancient  writers,  from 
the  time  of  St.  John  to  that  of  Constantine.  This 
argument  is  conclusive,  for  they  could  not  have 
cited  it,  had  it  not  been  in  the  sacred  canon.  3d. 
That  we  can  easily  account  for  its  being,  after  that 
time,  wanting  in  many  copies,  when  we  remember 
that  Constantine’s  successor  was  a zealous  Arian, 
who  used  every  means  to  promote  his  bad  cause,  to 
spread  Arianism  throughout  the  empire  ; in  parti- 
cular, the  erasing  this  text  out  of  as  many  copies  as 
fell  into  his  hands.”  No  doubt  this  was  the  case ; 


106 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


and  a similar  course  would  be  adopted  by  modern 
Arians,  were  it  not  for  public  opinion.  Mr.  A. 
Campbell  has  substantially  tried  the  experiment,  in 
publishing  his  version  of  the  New  Testament ; and 
some  of  our  citizens  have  had  it  in  their  houses  for 
some  months,  before  they  knew  that  it  was  anything 
less  than  the  whole  truth.  But,  on  looking  for  1 
John  v.  7,  the  “ improved  version”  is  found  want- 
ing. Such  an  expedient  is  certainly  unworthy  of 
any  good  cause  ; and  can  only  be  resorted  to  by 
those  who  consider  theirs  a desperate  one. 

4.  In  an  ancient  commentary  in  our  possession, 
the  name  of  whose  author  is  lost  from  the  work, 
the  text  is  explained  without  a hint  that  it  was  ever 
disputed. 

5.  Scott  and  Henry,  in  their  commentaries, 
vindicate  the  text  as  legitimate. 

6.  The  learned  Valpy,  in  his  Critical  Notes  on 
the  Greek  Testament,  defends  this  text  as  genuine, 
and  refers  to  Pearson,  Stillingfleet,  Bull,  Grab,  Mill, 
Bengelius,  Ernesti,  Horsley,  Nolan,  and  Bishop 
Burgess,  as  of  his  opinion.  He  also  quotes  the  re- 
mark of  Dr.  Hey,  that  “ the  text  might  be  more 
easily  expunged  unfairly,  than  admitted  unfairly.” 
This  is  obvious  to  every  candid  mind.  That  it 
might  be  expunged  by  the  opposers  of  the  doctrine 
it  contains,  is  certain  ; but,  that  Trinitarians  should 
forge  a new  text,  and  insert  it  in  the  manuscripts, 
and  yet  nothing  be  said  of  it  at  the  time  by  their 
opponents,  is  impossible.  We  must  therefore  have 
more  testimony  before  we  erase  this  Trinitarian  text 
from  our  Bibles. 

7.  This  text  stands  in  the  German  Bible,  printed 
in  1602  (a  reprint  of  a much  older  edition)  with 
out  any  mark  of  doubt.  This  shows  the  opinion  of 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD 


107 


the  German  divines  and  commentators  of  that  age  ; 
and  also  of  the  preceding  century. 

8.  The  bare  insertion  of  this  text,  in  our  English 
Bibles,  is  strong  evidence  that  it  is  a true  portion  of 
the  word  of  God.  Was  it  only  a word,  or  a phrase, 
the  case  would  be  different ; but  it  is  a whole  verse. 
When  we  consider  that  the  Bible  was  translated 
from  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  more  than  hvo  hundred 
years  ago ; when  sectarianism  was  dormant  to  what 
it  now  is;  that  forty-seven  of  the  most  learned  men 
on  the  globe  were  engaged  in  this  work  for  more 
than  three  years,  “ neither  coveting  praise  for  expedi- 
tion, nor  fearing  reproach  for  slackness — that  they 
had  all  the  manuscripts  that  could  now  be  had,  if 
not  many  more,  and  every  facility  which  the  British  - 
empire  could  furnish  or  procure — when  we  consi- 
der all  these  things,  we  are  not  prepared  to  admit 
that  they  have  sent  down  to  posterity  a forged 
Bible  ; or  that  they  were  less  honest  or  learned 
than  our  Arian  expositors. 

Finally , We  should  suppose  they  would  be 
among  the  last  to  attempt  to  invalidate  any  portion 
of  the  New  Testament.  They  boast  of  it  as  their 
“ Discipline,”  and  yet  they  are  ever  and  anon  try- 
ing to  prove  certain  portions  of  it,  that  cannot  be 
conformed  to  their  views,  incorrect,  counterfeit  and 
forged.  If  there  is  any  advantage  in  having  a 
genuine  confession  of  faith  and  a genuine  Bible, 
we  certainly  have  it.  Our  Bibles  and  creeds  are 
genuine,  while  those  of  the  Arians  are  in  part  a 
forgery,  they  themselves  being  judges. 

The  above  summary  of  testimony  is  sufficient  to 
show  the  slight  ground  upon  which  1 John  v.  7,  is 
rejected  by  those  who  dislike  its  doctrine.  Though 
it  is  but  a part  of  what  might  be  urged,  it  will 
doubtless  be  sufficient  for  the  sincere  inquirer  after 


108 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


truth ; and  the  obstinacy  which  rejects  this  evi- 
dence, is  probably  too  far  gone  to  be  benefited  by 
proof  or  argument.  Having  vindicated  the  text  as 
a genuine  portion  of  the  word  of  God,  we  shall  now 
proceed  to  consider  its  doctrine. 

In  the  first  member  of  the  text,  it  is  asserted,  that 
u there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.”  Here 
notice  ; the  second  person  is  not  called  the  Son  or 
Christ — titles  usually  applied  to  the  Saviour  to  ex- 
press his  complex  character — but  “the  Word,”  a 
title  that  signifies  the  pre-existent  nature  only.  Had 
he  been  called  the  Son,  or  Christ,  titles  which  in- 
clude both  natures,  John  could  not  have  said  “ these 
three  are  one,”  as  the  humanity  of  Christ  never  was 
one  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Again, 
these  three  Divine  persons  are  mentioned  in  the 
usual  scriptural  order,  without  any  sign  of  inferi- 
ority on  the  part  of  any  of  them,  the  work  attributed 
to  them  being  common  to  them  all.  The  three 
u bear  record the  Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost  doing 
all  that  the  Father  does. 

Secondly , It  is  declared  in  this  passage  that  “ these 
three”  namely,  the  Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
“ are  one.”  Is  it  possible  more  clearly  to  state  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  without  much  circumlocu- 
tion ? The  text  says  there  are  three,*  names  each 
of  the  three  separately ; and  declares  that  they  are 
one.  Here  then  we  have  three  in  one — a plurality 
and  unity  in  one  Being,  or  three  persons  in  one  God. 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

Plain  and  guarded  as  is  this  text  at  every  point, 
Arians  deny  that  it  contains  the  above  doctrine. 
This,  however,  is  nothing  strange.  As  a matter  of 
course,  if  they  cannot  impeach  those  passages  that 
are  in  the  way  of  their  system,  some  plan  must  be 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


109 


devised  to  pervert  their  meaning ; and  turn  aside 
those  u thunderbolts”  that  would  otherwise  rive  their 
frail  tenement  in  pieces.  But  let  us  examine  the 
Arian  exposition  of  the  text. 

1.  Mr.  Millard  tells  us,  p.  17,  that  it  points  out  a 
“ oneness  of  union.”  What  the  man  means  by  a 
i:  oneness  of  union,”  we  know  not.  If  he  means 
that  there  is  but  one  union  in  the  Divine  Being, 
very  well.  We  believe  that  by  one  eternal  union 
the  three  Divine  Persons  are  so  united  as  to  be  one 
God. 

2.  It  is  said  that  these  three  are  one  in  the  sense 
that  Christians  are  one  with  Christ  and  with  each 
other.  In  support  of  this  position  the  following 
texts  are  quoted : 

(1.)  “Neither  pray  I for  these  alone;  but  for 
them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me  through  thy 
word : That  they  all  may  be  one  ; as  thou  Father 
art  in  me,  and  I in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one 
in  us : — that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one, 
I in  them,  and  thou  in  us,  that  they  may  be  perfect 
in  one ; and  that  the  world  may  know  that  thou 
hast  sent  me,  and  hast  loved  them  as  thou  hast  lov- 
ed me.” — John  xvii.  20 — 23.  That  the  unity  here 
spoken  of  is  oneness  of  mind  and  spirit  we  admit. 
This  is  the  only  unity  among  Christians,  that  could 
prove  that  Christ  was  the  true  Messiah,  and  that 
his  religion  was  from  heaven.  We  also  admit 
that  Christ  and  the  Father  are  one  in  this  sense. 
This  text  speaks  of  an  agreement  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  like  that  of  Christians  that  are 
made  “ perfect  in  one  ;”  but  the  subject  treated  of  in 
1 John  v.  7,  is  altogether  different.  Hence  it  is  a 
violation  of  a just  rule  of  interpretation,  to  explain 
the  latter  by  the  former. 

(2.)  1 Cor.  iii.  7,  8.  u So  then,  neither  is  he  that 
10 


no 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


planteth  anything,  neither  he  that  watereth  ; but 
God  that  giveth  the  increase.  Now  he  that  planteth 
and  he  that  watereth  are  one  ; and  every  man  shall 
receive  his  own  reward,  according  to  his  own  labor.5 5 
The  argument  raised  on  this  text  by  Arians  is,  that 
as  Paul  and  Apollos  are  one,  and  yet  two  distinct 
beings,  so  the  three  mentioned  1 John  v.  7,  are  one, 
and  yet  not  one  being.  Now  we  deny  that  there  is 
the  least  analogy  between  the  two  texts  ; or  that  the 
oneness  mentioned  in  them  has  the  slightest  resem- 
blance. The  Corinthians  had  been  saying  one  to 
another,  a I am  of  Paul  and  I of  Apollos.55  Paul 
considered  this  u carnal,55  as  it  was  giving  them  that 
glory  as  ministers  which  they  could  not  receive. 
Hence  he  says,  “ I have  planted,  Apollos  watered, 
but  God  gave  the  increase.  So  then,  neither  is  he 
that  planteth  anything,  neither  he  that  watereth,  but 
God  that  giveth  the  increase.55  Now  we  ask  in 
what  sense  were  Paul  and  Apollos  one  ? Has  this 
text  any  reference  to  their  being  of  one  mind,  or  of 
one  spirit?  By  no  means.  They  were  one  in  of- 
fice, dignity  and  nature;  and  consequently  occupied 
one  ground , being  mere  agents  by  whom  the  Corin- 
thians heard  the  gospel  and  were  saved.  Hence  the 
question : u Who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos, 
but  ministers  by  whom  ye  believed  ?55  How  plain 
that  they  were  one  only  in  reference  to  their  office 
and  condition  as  ministers  ; and  their  unworthiness  to 
receive  the  honor  that  was  proffered  them.  But  are 
the  “ three  that  bear  record  in  heaven55  one  in  this 
sense  ? Are  they  one  as  mere  agents , occupying  one 
ground , and  filling  one  office  ? It  is  useless  to  waste 
time  upon  this  point,  as  every  one  must  see  that  this 
passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  and  should  never  be  pressed  into  the  ser- 
vice of  Arianism. 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


ill 


(3.)  Gal.  iii.  28.  “ There  is  neither  Jew  nor 
Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is 
neither  male  nor  female  : for  ye  are  all  one  in 
Christ  Jesus.”  Here  the  unity  spoken  of  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  text,  must  he  directly  opposed  to 
the  'plurality  spoken  of  in  the  former  part.  The 
Church  at  Galatia  was  composed  of  “Jews,  Greek, 
bond,  free,  male  and  female,”  who  had  abandoned 
their  former  religions,  respectively,  and  become  “ the 
children  of  God  by  faith.”  Now  the  doctrine  of  the 
text  is,  that  as  the  Galatians  had  been  “ baptised 
into  Jesus  Christ,”  and  had  “put  on  Christ,”  it  was 
their  duty  to  merge  all  former  peculiarities,  titles, 
and  attachments  in  the  one  common  cause  ; and  as 
they  were  now  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ 
Jesus,  they  must  be  o<ne  in  faith,  hope , affection  and 
doctrine.  In  this  sense  they  were  “ all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus.”  But  are  the  “ three  that  bear  record  in 
Heaven,”  “ one”  in  this  sense  ? Have  they  hereto- 
fore entertained  different  opinions,  and  belonged  to 
different  nations?  Have  they  abandoned  different 
systems  of  religion  and  become  “ all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus.”  How  trifling  to  assert  that  the  Father,  Word 
and  Holy  Ghost  are  one  in  any  such  sense. 

But  suppose  we  admit  for  a moment  that  the  three 
in  1 John  v.  7,  are  one  as  Christians  are  one  in 
the  above  passages.  Would  it  not  utterly  overthrow 
Arianism  ? These  Christians  were  one  in  nature, 
being  all  really  human.  Now  if  the  sacred  “ three” 
are  one  in  this  sense,  they  are  of  course  of  one  sub- 
stance, power,  and  eternity,  with  the  Father : and 
are  all  truly  and  properly  Divine. 

Again,  if  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Father  are  one 
as  Paul  and  Apollos  were  one,  they  must  be  two 
distinct  persons,  a point  which  Arians  deny.  They 
must  therefore  either  cease  to  explain  1 John  v.  7, 


112 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


by  the  above  texts,  or  admit  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
a distinct  person  in  the  Godhead,  and  that  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  of  one  nature,  truly 
and  really  Divine. 

(4.)  There  is  evidence  in  the  text  itself,  and  in 
the  context,  that  the  “ three”  cannot  be  u one”  in  the 
Arian  sense.  At  the  eighth  verse  it  is  said  of  the 
u spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood,”  tha  u these  three 
agree  in  one.”  Now  if  the  Father,  Word,  and 
Spirit,  are  one  only  in  the  sense  of  agreement , why 
is  it  not  said  that  they  “ agree  in  one  ?”  Why  say, 
“ these  three  are  one  ?” 

(5.)  Finally,  Our  opponents  are  extremely  in- 
consistent in  their  opposition  to  this  passage.  They 
first  tell  us  that  it  was  “forged”  and  inserted  by 
Trinitarians,  on  purpose  to  prove  their  doctrine  ; 
and  the  next  breath  they  affirm  that  the  text  has  no 
reference  whatever  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ! 
Why  then  was  it  inserted?  Could  a Trinity  be 
proved  by  a text  that  had  no  reference  to  that  sub- 
ject ? If,  as  Arians  say,  the  text  was  inserted  by 
Trinitarians  to  prove  their  doctrine,  it  must  certain- 
ly contain  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ; and  if  not 
thus  inserted,  it  is  genuine,  and  Arians  should  cease 
to  reject  it  as  spurious. 

But  we  must  close  these  remarks.  We  have 
shown  that  1 John  v.  7,  is  a genuine  portion  of  the 
word  of  God  ; and  that  it  clearly  and  fully  teaches 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  is  the  only  ob- 
ject for  which  it  was  introduced,  and  we  will  now 
dismiss  it.  In  spite  of  every  effort  to  erase  this  text 
from  the  Bible,  or  to  explain  away  its  meaning,  the 
truth  still  blazes  forth  from  the  pages  of  inspiration, 
that  “ there  are  threi  that  bear  record  in  heaven , the 
Father , the  Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost , and  these 

THREE  ARE  ONE.” 


THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 


113 


VIII.  A third  text  that  recognizes  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  as  persons  in  the  Godhead,  is 
Mat.  xxviii.  19,  “Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  The  Chris- 
tian Church  is  the  Church  of  God,  and  her  ministers 
are  God’s  servants,  to  preach  His  word  and  administer 
His  ordinances  in  His  name . In  baptism  the  candidate 
enters  into  solemn  covenant  with  God,  promising  to 
serve  him  all  the  days  of  his  life  ; on  the  fulfilment  of 
which  promise  God  is  pledged  to  bless  him  in  life  and 
death,  and  to  save  him  eternally  in  heaven.  The 
visible  “ sign”  and  “ seal ” of  this  covenant,  is  bap- 
tism; and  God  authorizes  his  ministers  to  apply 
this  seal  in  His  name , to  all  proper  subjects.  Now 
in  the  formula  appointed  by  God  himself,  to  be 
used  by  his  ministers  on  such  occasions,  they  are  ex- 
pressly taught  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  three  Divine 
Persons.  What  they  do  in  the  name  of  the  Lord, 
they  do  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost.  Now  if  there  be  no  Trinity,  why  this  Trin- 
itarian formula,  where  the  candidate  covenants  with 
God  only  ? Must  we  be  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  a creature  and  an  attribute  ? This  is 
the  Arian  sense  of  the  text.  But  one  class  of  Arians 
have  so  fallen  out  with  this  Trinitarian  ceremony, 
as  to  reject  it  altogether  in  baptism ; and  in  its  place 
to  substitute  u I baptize  thee  unto  the  remission  of 
sinsf  omitting  the  three  Divine  Persons,  and  doing 
the  work  in  their  own  name,  rather  than  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity. 

IX.  The  prayer  addressed  to  God  in  the  Apos- 
tolic benediction,  is  addressed  to  three  Divine  Per- 
sons. “ The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  be  with  you  all.  Amen.”  2 Cor.  xiii.  14. 

10* 


ll4  THREE  PERSONS  IN  ONE  GOD. 

That  u God”  in  this  passage  means  the  Father,  no 
one  will  deny.  Here,  then,  we  have  an  inspired 
Apostle,  solemnly  addressing  the  Supreme  Being  in 
behalf  of  the  Corinthian  Church  ; but  his  address 
is  not  to  the  Father  only,  but  to  the  three  Divine 
persons,  namely,  Father , So?i,  and  Holy  Ghost.  It 
is  certain,  therefore,  that  the  three  addressed  by 
Paul,  are  the  one  God  whom  he  worshipped. 

But  let  Arianism  interpret  this  prayer.  The 
Bible  teaches  that  u the  grace  of  God  bringeth  sal- 
vation”— that  we  are  saved  u by  grace,”  and  that 
this  grace  is  16  the  gift  of  God.”  Paul  says,  “ By 
the  grace  of  God  I am  what  I am,”  and  he  express- 
ly declares,  that  his  preaching  was  “ to  testify  the 
gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.11  Now  when  he  comes 
to  pray  for  his  Corinthian  brethren,  he  prays  for 
“ the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  If  then,  as 
Arians  tell  us,  Christ  is  a creature , and  a distinct 
being  from  God,  the  prayer  of  Paul  was  not  for 
the  grace  of  God,  but  of  a poor  finite  creature! 
He  enjoyed  the  grace  of  God  himself — the  only 
grace  that  can  bring  salvation— but,  upon  the  Arian 
hypothesis,  when  he  prays  for  others  he  asks  only 
the  grace  of  an  inferior,  dependent  “ agent  /” 

But  enough  has  been  said  on  the  subject  of  this 
chapter.  Though  we  might  greatly  enlarge  the 
above  list  of  texts,  we  consider  those  already  quoted 
as  abundantly  sufficient.  Our  object  has  been  to 
show  that  while  the  Scriptures  reveal  but  one  God , 
and  yet  reveal  three  Divine  Persons , of  one  sub- 
stance, power,  and  eternity,  they  reconcile  the  ap- 
parent contradiction  by  uniting  the  Father,  Word, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  one  living  and  true  God. 
This  point  we  now  consider  established.  We  have 
shown  that  the  God  that  sent  forth  Isaiah,  was  a 
God  consisting  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost— 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


115 


that  these  three  are  the  one  God  to  whom  the  Apos- 
tles prayed,  and  the  Father,  Word,  and  Holy  Ghost 
are  one.  With  this  summary  we  shall  close  the 
argument,  so  far  as  direct  proofs  are  concerned, 
and  proceed  in  the  next  chapter  to  consider  objec- 
tions. 


CHAPTER  X. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY 
ANSWERED. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  usual  course  pursued 
by  modern  Arians,  in  propagating  their  doctrine,  is 
to  stand  at  a respectful  distance  from  the  arguments 
of  their  opponents,  and  raise  objections  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity.  To  this  we  should  not  ob- 
ject, provided  they  were  candid  and  fair  in  their 
animadversions ; but  the  truth  is,  not  one  in  ten  of 
their  objections  is  urged  against  our  real  sentiments. 
They  first  misapprehend  or  wilfully  distort  our 
views,  and  then  fall  upon  their  own  Agag,  and 
hew  him  to  pieces.  Having  destroyed  their  man 
of  straw,  they  often  rejoice,  as  if  they  had  driven 
Trinitarianism  from  the  earth.  This  farce  has 
been  acted  over  and  over  again  in  different  parts  of 
the  country. 

If  our  opponents  would  state  our  views  as  they 
are,  or  suffer  our  articles  to  speak  for  themselves, 
without  a forced  construction,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  would  furnish  within  itself  an  answer  to 
every  reasonable  objection.  But  to  proceed : — 

I.  It  is  objected  that  u the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 


116 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


is  of  human  origin?  In  support  of  ihis  position, 
Millard  asserts,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
invented  at  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  and 
completed  at  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  A.  D. 
381.  That  creeds  were  formed  by  these  Councils 
as  declarations  of  the  general  faith,  we  do  not  deny ; 
but  this  fact  is  decidedly  in  our  favor.  These 
primitive  Christians  took  the  Bible  for  their  guide, 
and  after  the  proud  and  ambitious  Arius  introduced 
his  heresy,  and  began  to  spread  it  abroad,  Constan- 
tine assembled  the  ministers  of  the  Church  to  dis- 
cuss this  doctrine,  in  the  presence  of  the  Arian 
party,  and  to  pronounce  upon  its  character.  At  this 
Council  they  condemned  Arianism,  and  declared 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the 
primitive  Church,  and  of  the  Bible.  A person  of 
very  limited  historical  knowledge  must  know  this 
to  be  the  fact.  We  have,  then,  this  proof,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Christ ; and  was  pronounced  such  in 
her  confessions  of  faith,  at  least  as  far  back  as  with- 
in 225  years  of  the  death  of  St.  John. 

Again  : If  this  doctrine  is  of  human  origin,  how 
is  it  that  nearly  all  who  have  taken  the  Bible  for 
their  guide,  in  all  ages  of  the  Church,  have  been 
Trinitarians?  How  is  it  that  the  great  majority 
of  learned  and  pious  Christians  have  found  this 
doctrine  in  the  Bible ; while  comparatively  few 
have  rejected  it? 

II.  It  is  objected  that  this  doctrine  is  “ an  inven- 
tion of  Popery?  The  objection  just  now  considered 
is  a sufficient  answer  to  this.  If  the  doctrine  was  in- 
vented at  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325,  it  cannot 
be  an  invention  of  Popery  ; for  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
was  not  acknowledged  Universal  Bishop  or  Pope 
till  A.  D.  606 ; so  that  there  was  no  “ Popery”  till 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


117 


281  years  after  the  Nicene  Council.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  was  known  at  least  281  years  before 
Popery  was  known,  even  Arians  themselves  being 
judges. 

This  objection,  when  stated  in  a Protestant  com- 
munity, is  an  appeal  to  prejudice  rather  than  to  the 
judgment.  Suppose  Catholics  do  hold  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  does  that  circumstance  militate 
against  its  truth  ? Do  they  not  hold  to  other  doc- 
trines that  are  considered  fundamental  in  Christian- 
ity, even  by  Arians  ? That  Popery  is  a corrupt  re- 
ligion, both  in  theory  and  practice,  we  firmly  be- 
lieve ; but  to  reject  every  doctrine  that  is  held  by 
the  Catholics,  would  be  to  reject  the  being  of  a 
God,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  and  future  rewards  and  punishments, 
as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

In  our  view,  the  fact  that  Romanists  are  Trini- 
tarians, is  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine. 
While  they  have  corrupted  many  doctrines,  and 
have  covered  up  others,  during  the  nine  hun- 
dred years  of  their  ascendency,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  remains  unchanged  and  uncorrupted,  the 
same  as  in  the  days  of  Constantine.  This  shows  that 
it  was  too  conspicuous  and  prominent  on  the  pages  of 
the  Bible  to  be  covered  up,  and  too  stern  and  pointed 
in  its  evidences  to  yield  to  their  efforts  at  corruption. 
Again  : we  all  know  that  there  is  a tendency  in 
human  nature,  to  go  from  one  extreme  to  another. 
When  Luther  and  his  coadjutors  came  out  from 
the  Romish  Church,  and  protested  against  her  doc- 
trines and  practices,  they  rejected  every  thing  that 
they  did  not  find  revealed  in  the  word  of  God.  In 
sifting  truth  from  error,  they  were  far  more  liable 
under  the  circumstances  to  reject  a truth,  because 
they  found  it  with  Romish  errors,  than  to  adopt  and 


118 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


perpetuate  mere  Papal  inventions  as  the  truth  of 
God.  But  with  all  their  prejudices,  they  transfer 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  the  Romish  to  the 
Protestant  Church,  as  a doctrine  of  the  Bible — a 
doctrine  which  they  dare  not  reject  as  a human  in- 
vention, much  as  they  despised  the  errors  and  cor- 
ruptions of  Popery. 

Now,  if  this  doctrine  has  been  in  every  branch 
of  the  Church  up  to  1517,  and  at  that  time  passed 
the  ordeal  of  the  Reformation  as  a Bible  doctrine 
— if  at  this  ordeal,  where  the  Bible  was  made  the 
law,  and  prejudiced  men  the  judges,  this  doctrine 
was  acquitted  as  true,  and  adopted  as  from  heaven ; 
what  reasonable  man  will  be  terrified  by  the  cry 
of  u Popery  ?”  or  be  influenced  in  the  least  by  this 
frivolous  objection  ? 

III.  A third  objection  is,  that  “ the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  unscripturalP  This  is  grounded  mainly 
upon  the  fact,  that  the  words  “ Trinity,”  “ incarna- 
tion,” &c.,  are  not  found  in  the  Bible.  “ If  these 
phrases  were  in  the  Bible,”  says  Kinkade,  “ I would 
not  say  a word  against  them ; but,  as  neither  the 
word  Trinity , co-equal,  co-essential , &c.,  is  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  but  are  all  mere  human  inventions,  no 
person  who  takes  the  Bible  for  a standard,  will  con- 
sider me  erroneous  for  rejecting  them.”  Again, 
he  says,  iL  It  is  not  common  for  logicians  to  dispute 
much  about  words , when  they  agree  in  idea.”  But 
do  not  Arians  claim  to  be  “ logicians  ?”  and  do  they 
not  make  the  whole  controversy  turn  upon  “words?” 
We  do  not  say  the  word  “ Trinity ” is  in  the  Bible, 
but  the  doctrine  is  there  ; and  no  logician  will  dis- 
pute about  mere  words.  According  to  their  own 
showing,  then,  the  above  objection  is  groundless. 

After  what  has  been  said  on  the  term  Trinity 
&c.,  Chap.  II.  and  the  proofs  adduced  from  the 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


119 


Bible  in  the  preceding  pages,  we  leave  the  reader 
to  judge  whether  our  views  are  scriptural  or  not. 
Formally  to  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  here,  would 
be  to  repeat  the  arguments  already  adduced.  * 

IV.  Others  reject  Trinitarianism,  because  “ it  is  a 
mystery .”  The  strength  of  this  objection  is,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  cannot  be  true,  because  we 
cannot  understand  how  three  persons  can  be  united 
as  one  God.  There  is  no  mystery  in  the  fact  of 
this  union  ; this  is  clearly  revealed.  The  mystery 
is  all  in  the  mode  of  union.  Now,  we  demur  to 
the  principle  assumed  in  this  objection  as  Deistical, 
and  subversive  of  all  revelation.  If  we  are  to  re- 
ject every  doctrine  that  we  cannot  comprehend,  we 
shall  soon  reject  most  of  the  leading  truths  of  the 
Bible.  Can  any  tell  how  the  dead  are  to  be  re-or- 
ganized and  brought  to  life  ? — how  we  are  born  of 
the  Spirit? — how  spirits  communicate  with  each 
other  in  the  intermediate  state  ? or  how  God  exists, 
and  is  omniscient  and  omnipresent  ? God  gave  the 
Bible  to  teach  things  that  we  did  not  know ; 
and,  for  us  to  assume  to  decide  upon  the  truth  of 
things  revealed,  making  reason  the  test  of  revela- 
tion, is  the  height  of  folly  and  presumption.  We 
are  bound  to  believe  all  that  is  revealed  in  the  Bi- 
ble, whether  we  can  comprehend  it  or  not.  Such 
is  the  weakness  of  the  human  understanding,  that 
we  lay  it  down  as  a principle,  that  we  should  be- 
lieve things  that  we  cannot  comprehend  or  explain, 
whether  made  known  to  us  by  the  senses,  by  con- 
sciousness, or  by  revelation.  Hence  we  believe 
that  the  soul  and  body  are  united  ; that  the  sun 
shines ; the  heart  beats  ; grass  grows,  and  bodies 
gravitate  ; and  yet  we  cannot  fully  comprehend  or 
explain  one  of  these  phenomena.  Nor  can  Arians 
divest  their  cwn  system  of  “ mystery .”  Can  they 


120 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


tell  how  God  can  have  a body  and  soul,  and  yet  be 
“ a Spirit  V 1 How  he  can  have  a natural  son  that 
had  no  body  before  the  world  began,  either  with  or 
without  a mother  ? How  there  can  be  two  omni- 
potent Gods,  and  yet  but  one  God?  We  have 
known  a number  of  their  leading  men  to  admit 
that  there  were  mysteries  in  their  system  ; and  yet 
they  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  because  it  is 
a mystery  ! 

That  there  are  three  distinct  persons  in  the  God- 
head, and  that  “ these  three  are  one"  is  clearly  re- 
vealed ; and  we  may  as  well  reject  the  being  of  a 
God  because  we  cannot  comprehend  him,  as  to  re- 
ject his  peculiar  mode  of  being  for  the  same  reason. 

V.  Another  objection  is,  that  u the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  unreasonable  .”  The  remarks  on  the  last 
objection  are  equally  applicable  here,  as  both  objec- 
tions assume  that  human  reason  is  to  decide  what 
is  possible  or  impossible  in  a revelation  from  God. 
A doctrine  is  reasonable  or  unreasonable  with  a 
man,  according  as  it  agrees  or  disagrees  with  doc- 
trines and  notions  already  entertained.  All  reason- 
ing proceeds  by  comparison ; and  if  on  comparing 
a new  thought  with  an  old  one  they  disagree,  the 
new  thought  is  pronounced  unreasonable  Hence 
when  once  a person  adopts  a system,  in  religion  or 
philosophy,  he  uniformly  considers  all  others  un-' 
reasonable,  that  do  not  accord  with  his  pre-conceived 
views.  For  instance,  the  Copernican  theory  of  the 
revolution  of  the  earth  was  considered  very  unreason- 
able by  those  who  held  that  the  earth  stood  still ; and 
the  absurd  idea  that  the  heavenly  bodies  made  the 
whole  circuit  of  the  heavens  every  twenty-four  hours 
was  pronounced  reasonable,  because  it  agreed  with 
the  first  error,  namely  that  the  earth  stood  still. 

So  with  Arians  in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED 


121 


Trinity.  They  compare  it  with  their  theory,  and 
then  pronounce  it  “ unreasonable”  because  it  does 
not  agree  with  Arianism.  Deacon  Homespun 
must  be  right,  though  Copernicus  and  all  the  world 
' be  wrong. 

But  by  what  rule  is  this  doctrine  branded  as  un- 
reasonable ? Can  it  be  unreasonable  unless  it  con- 
tradicts some  known  and  established  truth  ? By  no 
means.  We  ask  then,  wherein  is  it  repulsive  to 
reason  ? Can  such  hostility  be  discovered  by  com- 
mon minds  ? If  so,  how  is  it  that  the  greatest  logi- 
cians that  have  ever  lived  have  been  Trinitarians  ? 
and  that  nine-tenths  of  all  the  great  men  that  have 
ever  shone  in  the  Church,  have  believed  the 
same  doctrine?  Are  there  no  reasonable  men  on 
earth  but  Arians  ? Alas,  for  Methodists,  Baptists, 
Presbyterians,  Quakers,  Dutch  Reformed,  Luthe- 
rans and  Episcopalians  ! If  our  opponents  are  cor- 
rect, we  are  well  nigh  destitute  of  reason. 

Aside  from  the  arrogance  of  such  indiscriminate 
censure,  it  always  creates  suspicion  with  some,  to 
hear  men  so  loud  in  eulogizing  reason,  as  the  test 
of  Bible  truth.  It  reminds  us  of  a certain  book 
called  “ The  Age  of  Reason  and  of  a nation  we 
once  read  of,  that  reasoned  the  Sabbath  into  every 
tenth  day  ; the  Bible  into  the  fire  ; and  the  soul  of 
man  out  of  existence. 

VI.  A sixth  objection  to  our  doctrine  is,  that  “it 
represents  Christ  as  two  persons ; and  thus  makes  out 
as  many  as  four  persons  in  the  Godhead  .”  It  is 
urged  that  if  Christ  had  a human  body  and  soul, 
they  must  make  one  person,  and  the  pre-existent  na- 
ture is  another  person.  “Add  to  these,”  say  they, 
“the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  we  have 
four  persons”  The  fallacy  of  this  objection  lies  in 
the  ambiguous  use  of  the  term  person.  It  ordina- 
11 


122 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


rily  comprehends  in  its  meaning  both  body  and  soul, 
but  not  always.  It  sometimes  includes  only  the 
body,  at  other  times  only  a spirit ; as  when  it  is  said, 
God  is  a person  ; but  when  applied  to  Christ  as  a 
complex  being,  it  comprehends  his  entire  substance, 
soul,  body,  and  Divinity.  Hence  we  say,  “ the 
Godhead  and  manhood  were  joined  together  in  one 
person.”  We  might  as  well  say  that  there  were 
two  Christs,  or  two  sons  of  God,  as  that  there  were 
two  persons. 

As  the  soul  and  body  may  each  be  called  a per- 
son when  abstractly  considered,  and  yet  when 
united  are  but  one  person  ; so  the  humanity  and 
Divinity  of  Christ,  which  might  each  be  called  per- 
sons when  separately  considered,  are  but  one  per- 
son when  united  in  Christ. 

VII.  It  is  objected  that  ufif  Trinitarianism  be  true , 
we  have  only  a human  sacrifice 

This  objection  comes  with  an  ill  grace  from  those 
who  deny  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ  altogether  ; 
but  still  we  will  give  it  a candid  consideration. 
The  curse  of  a broken  law  hung  over  man ; and 
without  real  humanity  there  could  have  been  no 
atonement.  This  we  have  shown  in  our  remarks 
on  the  humanity  of  Christ.  But  though  humanity 
was  essential,  as  well  as  Divinity,  sinful  humanity 
could  not  become  an  offering  for  the  sins  of  others ; 
as  it  would  need  an  atonement  for  itself.  All  the 
natural  descendants  of  Adam  were  “ in  his  own 
image,”  that  is,  depraved  and  sinful ; but  the  hu- 
manity of  Christ,  being  begotten  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  had  not  the  depravity  of  Adam’s  natural 
descendants,  but  was  perfectly  holy.  In  reference 
to  this  miraculous  provision  for  the  redemption  of 
the  world,  the  eternal  Word  says  to  the  Father, 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


123 


“ sacrifices  and  offerings  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a body 
hast  thou  prepared  me.  ” 

As  Christ’s  humanity  was  begotten  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  was  perfectly  holy,  he  needed  no  atone- 
ment for  himself,  and  was  an  appropriate  offering 
for  the  sins  of  the  world.  He  never  sinned  or  re- 
pented ; was  never  converted ; and  will  never  be 
judged.  “ Such  an  High  Priest  became  us,  who  is 
holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  separate  from  sinners, 
and  made  higher  than  the  heavens  ; who  needeth 
not  daily  as  those  high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice, 
first  for  his  own  sins , and  then  for  the  people’s  : for 
this  he  did  once,  when  he  offered  up  himself.  For 
the  law  maketh  men  high  priests  which  have  in- 
firmity ; but  the  word  of  the  oath,  which  was  since 
the  law,  maketh  the  Son,  who  is  consecrated  for- 
evermore.” Heb.  vii.  26. 

Christ’s  sacrifice,  then,  was  more  than  human , if 
by  human  we  mean  a mere  fellow  being.  He  was 
begotte7i  of  God  ; was  perfectly  holy ; and  was  in 
union  with  the  Godhead , and  sustained  by  it , in  the 
redemption  of  the  world.  To  attempt,  therefore,  to 
disparage  the  atonement,  by  connecting  it  with  the 
sin  and  corruption  of  fallen  humanity,  is  a mere 
artifice  ; — an  appeal  to  our  prejudices,  rather  than 
to  the  Scriptures. 

“ The  man  Christ  Jesus”  was  a sacrifice  which 
God  could  accept — an  atonement  by  the  merit  of 
which  “ He  could  be  just,  and  yet  the  justifier  of 
him  that  believeth  in  Jesus.”  Now  allowing  that 
the  offering  actually  made  for  sin,  was  nothing 
more  than  the  “body  prepared” — the  spotless  hu- 
manity of  Christ,  what  then  ? Has  Arianism  a 
more  valid  atonement  ? Do  they  not  assert  that 
Christ  is  a mere  creature  ? and  has  not  one  creature 
as  much  merit  before  God  as  another  ? All  the 


124 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED 


merit  that  could  be  secured,  growing  out  of  the 
quality  of  the  offering,  must  arise  from  a connection 
with  absolute  Divinity — a connection  which  we 
acknowledge,  hut  which  Arians  deny. 

VIII.  Another  common  objection  is,  that  “ accord- 
ing to  Trinitarianism , the  Son  of  God  never  died” 

But  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God  in  a twofold 
sense.  His  Divine  Nature  was  the  “ Son,”  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  his  humanity  was  the  Son  of  God,  because  God 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  his  only  father.  _ In  some 
passages  the  title  “ Son  of  God”  signifies  one  na- 
ture ; in  some  the  other ; and  in  others  both  united. 
u Unto  the  Son  he  saith,  thy  throne,  O God,  is  for- 
ever and  ever,” — “ all  men  should  honor  the  Son, 
even  as  they  honor  the  Father.”  Here  the  term 
Son , signifies  the  Divine  Nature.  In  the  first  chap- 
ter of  Luke  it  is  applied  to  the  humanity  only. 
“ The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  ; there- 
fore that  holy  thing  that  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  God.”  Here  that  which  was 
horn  of  Mary,  namely  the  human  nature,  was  to  be 
called  the  Son  of  God,  because  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
its  Father,  by  whom  it  was  begotten.  Other  pas- 
sages apply  the  term  to  both  natures.  The  Son  in 
Isaiah  ix.  6,  is  both  a “ child  born”  and  “ the  mighty 
God  and  in  most  places  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  Mr.  Watson  well  remarks,  it  is  applied  to  Christ 
without  any  nice  distinction,  to  include  both  natures, 
and  signify  the  one  person,  Jesus  Christ.  Now  as 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  in  both  natures,  considered 
as  distinct,  and  is  consequently  the  Son  of  God  in 
his  complex  character,  the  death  of  the  human  na- 
ture is  entirely  sufficient  to  justify  the  language  of 
the  Scriptures.  If  the  u Son  of  God”  meant  only 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


125 


the  Divine  Nature,  we  should  deny  that  it  died. 
We  do  not  believe  that  the  pre-existent  Spirit — the 
Divinity — ever  suffered  or  died  ; nor  did  we  suppose 
that  even  a super-angelic  being  could  die,  till  we 
read  it  from  the  pen  of  an  Arian  preacher.  Mr. 
Millard  says  the  whole  Christ  actually  died,  Divinity 
and  all ; but  as  he  was  only  a subordinate  God, 
according  to  Mr.  M.’s  theory,  it  seems  he  was  not 
exempt  from  death. 

But  Trinitarians  do  not  hold  to  the  suffering  or 
death  of  Divinity  ; and  yet  they  firmly  believe  that 
“ that  holy  thing”  which  was  bom  of  Mary,  and 
was  called  by  Gabriel  “ the  Son  of  God,”  actually 
died  on  the  cross  as  an  atonement  for  sin. 

IX.  It  is  affirmed  that  according  to  our  doctrine 
“ God  diedP  This  objection  and  the  preceding, 
cross  at  right  angles,  and  neutralize  each  other. 
If,  according  to  our  views,  the  pre-existent  nature 
did  not  die,  how  does  it  appear  that  God  died  % But 
we  will  give  the  objection  full  scope,  and  answer  it 
as  if  it  stood  alone.  It  is  said  if  Christ  was  God* 
and  Christ  died,  God  must  have  died. 

To  those  who  have  given  little  attention  to  the 
subject,  this  argument  appears  quite  plausible.  But 
let  us  examine  it.  In  order  to  make  the  objec- 
tion valid  we  must  assert  that  Christ  has  but  one 
nature ; that  in  this  nature  he  is  God  ; and  that  he 
actually  died.  But  is  this  Trinitarianism  ? We 
assert  that  Christ  has  two  natures , humanity  and 
Divinity  ; and  that  the  human  nature  only  died  on 
the  cross.  How  then  does  our  doctrine  imply  that 
God  died  % The  humanity  could  die  and  did  die, 
without  the  suffering  or  death  of  Divinity. 

Natural  death  is  the  separation  of  soul  and  body; 
and  though  the  soul  of  man  never  dies,  yet  we 
speak  of  a deceased  person  as  dead.  So  in  refe- 
* 11* 


126 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


rence  to  Christ.  His  pre-existent  nature  and  his 
human  soul  were  both  immortal,  and  consequently 
could  not  die  ; but  his  body  being  mortal  “ became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.” 
Now  we  might  as  well  say  that  the  soul  dies  be- 
cause the  body  does,  as  that  Christ’s  Divinity  died 
because  his  body  did.  The  same  logic  would  say, 
“ men  are  souls  and  bodies  united.  Men  die , there- 
fore souls  and  bodies  dieP 

X.  Again,  it  is  asserted  that  on  the  Trinitarian 
scheme  “ there  was  no  humiliation ,”  in  the  advent  of 
Christ.  A strange  objection  indeed,  and  easily  an- 
swered. It  rests  on  the  assumption  that  it  indicates 
greater  condescension  and  humility  for  a creature  to 
become  incarnate,  than  for  God  to  be  “manifest 
in  the  flesh.”  This  assumption  is  untrue,  as  all 
must  see.  The  more  elevated  the  being,  the 
greater  the  humiliation  in  stooping  to  our  nature, 
and  to  a visible  residence  in  this  lower  world.  So 
far,  then,  as  the  infinite  God  exceeds  a mere  crea- 
ture ; so  far  does  the  Trinitarian  scheme  exceed 
that  of  the  Arians,  in  the  humiliation  it  ascribes  to 
Christ.  For  a creature  to  be  elevated  to  create,  sus- 
tain, and  govern  all  things — to  forgive  sins,  receive 
the  homage  of  men  and  angels,  and  judge  all  men 
at  the  last  day — is  an  inconceivable  exaltation  ; but 
for  the  eternal  Word,  the  God  and  Creator  of  all, 
to  assume  our  nature  and  “ dwell  among  us,”  is  a 
specimen  of  humiliation  unparalleled  in  the  annals 
of  time  or  of  eternity.  And  yet  it  is  objected  that 
there  is  “ no  humiliation  ! !” 

XI.  It  is  urged,  that  “ if  Trinit arianism  be  true , 
we  have  no  Mediator In  Christ  were  united  the 
sacerdotal , prophetic , and  regal  offices ; into  all  of 
which  the  candidate  was  inducted  by  anointing. 
Hence  Jesus  is  called  Christy  which  signifies  the 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


127 


anointed.  In  his  priestly  office  he  is  our  Mediator, 
and  stands  like  the  ancient  high  priests  between 
the  Father  and  sinful  men.  His  pre-existent  nature 
is  also  our  Mediator  by  office.  Each  of  the  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead  has  his  peculiar  office  in 
the  work  of  redemption.  The  Father  vindicated 
the  law,  and  insists  on  the  claims  of  justice.  The 
Son  becomes  incarnate,  to  mediate  between  the 
Father  and  us,  to  become  our  Advocate,  and  to  re- 
deem us  from  under  the  curse  of  a broken  law. 
The  peculiar  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  to  inspire 
the  Scriptures  ; to  convince  the  world  of  sin  ; to  in- 
duce repentance ; to  renew  the  heart  in  conversion, 
and  to  sanctify  us  wholly  to  God.  It  does  in- 
deed seem  that  the  whole  scheme  and  economy  of 
man’s  redemption  was  laid,  in  order  to  bring  man- 
kind gradually  into  an  acquaintance  with  the  three 
Divine  Persons,  one  God  blessed  forever.  Now,  if 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  true,  Christ  is  our 
Mediator  in  both  natures.  The  pre-existent  Word 
being  “ manifest  in  the  flesh,”  the  entire  person,  in- 
cluding both  humanity  and  Divinity,  constitutes  an 
appropriate  Mediator  between  the  Father  and  us. 
We  may  approach  God  through  such  a Mediator, 
and  live  ; for  by  him  the  rays  of  Divine  justice  are 
so  modified,  that  we  can  draw  nigh  unto  God,  and 
not  be  consumed.  He  is  our  Brother,  and  we  need 
not  dread  to  approach  him ; he  is  our  God,  and  we 
need  not  fear  to  love,  trust,  obey,  and  worship  him 
with  all  our  hearts,  and  forever  more. 

So  far  is  Trinitarianism  from  destroying  the  me- 
diatorial office,  that  it  is  the  only  doctrine  that  fully 
recognizes  that  office.  It  is  the  glory  of  our  sys- 
tem that  u there  is  one  God  and  one  Mediator  be- 
tween God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus.” 

XII.  Arians  tell  us,  that  our  doctrine  “ represents 


128 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


Jesus  Christ  as  sending  himself;  anointing  himself f 
&c.  This,  also,  is  a mistake.  If  there  are  no  dis- 
tinctions of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  as  Arians  af- 
firm ; that  is,  if  God  exists  in  one  person  only ; then 
to  assert  the  Deity  of  Christ,  is  to  represent  the 
same  person  as  sending  and  being  sent ; but  if  God 
exists  in  three  persons,  then  the  Father  could  send 
the  Son,  and  the  Son  could  pray  to  the  Father. 
The  Word,  or  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  was 
sent  in  the  office  of  Mediator,  to  take  our  nature, 
and  become  a sacrifice  for  sin  ; and,  in  order  to  re- 
deem man,  and  conquer  death  in  his  own  domin- 
ions, he  “ humbled  himself,”  and  assumed  “ the 
place  of  a servant.”  Though  he  was  rich,  for  our 
sakes  he  became  poor,  yielding  to  an  official  subor- 
dination, and  dependence.  Hence,  though  he  was 
essentially  one  with  the  Father,  he  was  officially  sub- 
ject to,  and  dependent  upon  the  Father,  in  the 
great  work  of  human  redemption.  As  the  incar- 
nate Son,  self-exiled  from  the  glory  of  heaven,  and 
nearing  the  period  of  his  exaltation  and  glorifica- 
tion, he  prays,  “ Now,  O Father,  glorify  thou  me 
with  the  glory  which  I had  with  thee  before  the 
world  began.” 

If  then,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  true, 
Christ  did  not  pray  to  himself,  or  send  himself;  for 
whether  it  were  the  incarnate  Son  that  prayed,  or 
the  human  soul,  or  both,  as  united  in  one  complex 
person,  the  prayer  was  offered  to  the  Father,  a dis- 
tinct person  in  the  Godhead  ; and  the  Father  sends 
the  Son,  and  anoints  “ Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.” 

XIII.  The  last  objection  we  shall  notice,  and  the 
only  remaining  one  that  we  know  of,  is,  that,  u ac- 
cording to  Trinitarianism , the  sufferings  of  Christ  were 
comparatively  nothing .”  It  is  alledged,  that  as  his 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED, 


129 


Divinity  infinitely  transcends  his  humanity,  and 
yet  could  not  suffer,  but  was  infinitely  happy  while 
Christ  hung  on  the  cross,  his  sufferings  were  the 
sufferings  of  mere  humanity ; a part  of  Christ 
which,  compared  with  the  whole  of  him,  was  as  a 
drop  to  the  ocean.  This  objection  assumes  first , 
that  the  validity  of  the  atonement  depends  upon  the 
amount  and  intensity  of  Christ’s  sufferings  ; and,  se- 
condly, that  humanity  could  not  suffer  as  much  even 
while  connected  with  Divinity,  as  an  exalted  creature 
could  without  such  connection.  Neither  of  these 
positions  is  tenable. 

1.  Christ  never  suffered,  in  amount , what  the  law 
demanded  as  the  punishment  of  sin  ; for  this  would 
have  consigned  him  to  indescribable  torments  to  all 
eternity ; and,  on  the  principle  that  u he  died  for 
all,”  all  must  have  been  saved  ; as  the  loss  of  one 
soul  would  have  involved  double  punishment,  and 
stamped  the  Divine  administration  with  injustice. 
There  would  then  have  been  no  such  thing  as  par- 
don, as  the  punishment  would  only  have  been 
changed  from  the  guilty  to  the  innocent. 

The  penalty  due  to  sin  is  endless  suffering. 
Christ  did  not  suffer  this,  therefore  he  did  not  suffer 
in  amount  the  desert  of  sin  : and  the  atonement  does 
not  depend  upon  the  amount  of  suffering. 

The  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  such  as  God  could 
accept,  consistently  with  the  claims  of  Divine  jus- 
tice ; and  with  that  satisfaction  “ he  could  be  just, 
and  yet  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus.” 
Hence  it  did  not  make  the  salvation  of  all  a neces- 
sary result  of  the  atonement,  but  merely  a possible 
consequence. 

Though  the  Scriptures  lay  some  stress  upon  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  they  are  far  from  making  these 
alone  the  ground  of  our  justification.  They  attri- 


130 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


bute  our  redemption  to  the  blood  of  Christ  as  well 
as  to  his  sufferings.  “ We  are  made  nigh  by  the 
blood  of  Christ” — “him  that  hath  loved  us,  and 
hath  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood ” — 
“ set  forth  to  be  a propitiation  through  faith  in  his 
blood ” — “ we  have  redemption  through  his  blood , 
and  remission  of  sins” — peace  was  made  “ through 
the  blood  of  his  cross” — we  are  redeemed  not  with 
corruptible  things,  but  “ with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ.” 

It  was  not  the  sufferings  of  the  sacrifice  that 
made  an  atonement  under  the  Levitical  law,  but 
the  blood ; and  so  with  Christ ; “ the  Lamb-  of  God 
that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.”  The  saved 
in  heaven  do  not  attribute  their  salvation  to  Christ’s 
sufferings,  but  addressing  the  “ Lamb,”  they  say, 
“ Thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by 
thy  blood” 

It  is  an  unscriptural  objection,  therefore,  that 
makes  the  validity  of  the  atonement  to  depend  upon 
the  amount  and  intensity  of  Christ’s  sufferings. 

2.  It  is  equally  preposterous  and  fallacious  to  at- 
tempt to  measure  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  as  they 
are  measured  and  limited  by  this  objection.  We 
have  no  evidence  that  any  being  in  the  universe  is 
capable  of  more  intense  suffering  than  the  human 
spirit.  The  sufferings  of  lost  souls  in  hell  are 
greater,  judging  from  the  language  used  in  descri- 
bing them,  than  those  of  the  fallen  angels.  Now, 
by  what  authority  is  it  assumed  that  humanity  is 
capable  of  but  limited  suffering?  Have  human 
spirits  less  sensibility  or  immortality  than  angels  ? 
It  is  probable  that  we  have  but  a mere  specimen  of 
our  capability  to  suffer,  in  the  most  extreme  suffer- 
ings of  the  present  life. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  if  humanity  only  suffered, 


OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 


131 


a small  amount  of  suffering  would  produce  death, 
with  which  all  suffering  must  end.  This  also  is 
fallacious.  Life  does  not  remain  or  become  extinct, 
according  as  our  sufferings  rise  to,  or  keep  below,  a 
certain  point.  Some  who  live,  suffer  far  more  than 
others  who  die ; and  many  die  who  suffer  com- 
paratively little. 

Hitherto  we  have  defended  the  orthodox  view  of 
atonement,  as  if  there  was  nothing  peculiar  in  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ.  It  has  been  shown 
that  if  he  were  only  a man  like  one  of  us,  it  would 
be  impossible  to  invalidate  the  atonement  for  want 
of  suffering.  But  this  was  not  the  case.  He  was 
not  only  man,  and  perfectly  holy,  but  “ in  him 
dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.” 
There  was  a union  of  soul,  and  body,  and  Divinity  ; 
and  had  it  not  been  for  the  support  of  the  Divine 
Nature,  no  doubt  Christ  would  have  given  up  the 
ghost  long  before  he  came  to  the  Cross.  What 
merely  human  being  ever  suffered  so  as  to  sweat 
“ great  drops  of  blood,”  and  yet  lived  1 Christ  had 
not  yet  felt  the  nails  or  the  soldier’s  spear  ; and  yet, 
such  was  his  “ agony,”  even  before  he  was  betrayed, 
that  the  blood  gushed  from  every  pore,  “ falling 
down  to  the  ground  !”  In  the  midst  of  this  intense 
suffering,  “there  appeared  an  angel  unto  him  from 
heaven,  strengthening  him,”  as  if  for  the  time  being 
to  render  the  sufferer  immortal,  and  strengthen  the 
ties  of  dissolving  nature,  as  soul  and  body  were 
parting.  And  yet  with  all  these  circumstances, 
rendering  him  capable  of  untold  suffering  ; and 
with  all  the  evidences  of  distress  that  attended  him 
in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross  ; it  is  objected  that, 
according  to  our  system,  Christ  was  no  sufferer  ! 

But  look  for  a moment  at  the  opposite  theory. 
Arians  tell  us  that  Christ  is  a creature , and  has  but 


132 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


one  nature ; and  that  he  had  no  union  with  a pro- 
per Divinity.  Now  we  ask,  can  one  intelligent 
creature  suffer  more  than  another  may?  If  Christ 
is  “ the  first  creature  that  was  born  into  existence,” 
as  Mr.  Kinkade  says,  is  there  any  proof  that  he 
could  suffer  any  more  than  a man  ? And  could  not 
a creature  united  with  and  sustained  by  the  Divine 
Nature,  suffer  far  more  than  one  who  had  not  that 
union  and  peculiar  support  ? It  is  perfectly  cer- 
tain, that  if  either  system  diminishes  the  sufferings 
of  Christ,  it  is  that  of  the  Arians. 

We  have  now  considered  all  the  objections  that 
we  ever  knew  urged  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity ; and  the  reader  must  judge  whether  the 
answers  given  are  candid  and  scriptural  or  not 
But  we  have  not  done  yet.  Our  opponents  claim 
the  right  to  state  objections,  and  demand  answers  to 
all  their  queries.  Of  course,  then,  they  will  allow 
us  carefully  to  examine  their  system,  before  we 
abandon  ours  ; and  if,  in  the  examination,  we  dis- 
cover untempered  mortar,  hay,  wood,  and  stubble, 
they  will  not  consider  it  uncourteous  in  us,  if  we 
state  our  fears  and  our  reasons  for  them.  We  shall 
proceed,  then,  in  the  next  Chapter,  to  state  some  ob- 
jections to  the  Arian  theory. 


CHAPTER  XL 

OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM  STATED  AND  URGED. 

It  is  but  too  common  a practice,  in  stating  objec- 
tions, to  caricature  and  distort  the  system  opposed, 
in  order  to  render  it  odious,  and  to  create  the  greater 
number  of  objectionable  features.  This  is  always 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


133 


unfair,  and,  in  respect  to  the  present  controversy, 
wholly  unnecessary.  Arianism  is  quite  bad 
enough  as  it  really  is,  without  any  misrepresenta- 
tions ; and  our  main  difficulty  will  be,  not  in  find- 
ing reasonable  objections,  but  in  making  a judicious 
selection  from  the  vast  number  that  might  be  urged. 
We  have,  therefore,  no  possible  motive  for  produ- 
cing an  overwrought  picture  of  modern  Arianism. 
It  has  often  been  the  case,  that  when  it  has  been 
fairly  unveiled  to  the  world,  its  avowed  friends 
have  disowned  it,  and  pronounced  the  disclosure  a 
misrepresentation.  In  anticipation  of  this  we  have 
made  a free  use  of  names  and  quotations  in  the 
preceding  pages,  that  we  might  do  no  injustice  to 
the  Arian  theory. 

After  having  read  their  books  and  periodicals  for 
a number  of  years  ; after  holding  a number  of  pub- 
lic discussions  both  oral  and  written,  and  conversing 
with  private  individuals  of  the  Arian  school ; we  do 
positively  know  that  the  sentiments  we  oppose  are, 
in  truth  and  verity,  the  sentiments  of  the  great 
body  of  modern  Arians;  and  we  here  challenge 
any  man  to  point  out  a single  doctrine  which  we 
have  charged  upon  them,  which  is  not  clearly  ex- 
pressed or  necessarily  implied  in  their  writings. 
With  these  remarks  we  proceed  to  the  work  be- 
fore us. 

1.  Arianism  is  of  suspicious  origin.  Mr.  Watson 
says — “ The  source  of  this  ancient  error  appears  to 
have  been  a philosophical  one.  Both  in  the  Orien- 
tal and  Greek  schools,  it  was  a favorite  notion,  that 
whatsoever  was  joined  to  matter , was  necessarly  con- 
taminated by  it,  and  that  the  highest  perfection  of 
this  life  was  abstraction  from  material  things,  and, 
in  another,  a total  and  final  separation  from  the 
body.”  This,  he  says,  was  “ one  of  the  chief 
12 


134 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


grounds  of  the  rejection  of  the  proper  humanity  of 
Christ  among  the  different  branches  of  the  Gnostics, 
who,  indeed,  erred  as  to  both  natures.”  If  this 
opinion  be  correct,  (and  we  have  every  reason  to 
think  it  is,)  Arianism  had  its  origin  in  the  errors  of 
the  Pagan  religion,  and  the  bewildering  specula- 
tions of  a false  philosophy. 

II.  Arianism  approaches  nearer  io  a system  of  neg- 
ativism, or  unbelief,  than  to  a system  of  faith.  In 
their  writings  and  conversation,  Arians  are  ever 
ready  to  tell  you  what  they  do  not  believe,  but  they 
are  never  willing  to  tell  you,  plainly  and  fully, 
what  they  do  believe.  They  are  free  to  declare  that 
they  do  not  believe  in  a Trinity — in  Christ’s  Deity, 
or  humanity — in  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
— in  depravity — in  creeds,  or  in  a vicarious  atone- 
ment ; but  when  asked  to  tell  what  kind  of  a being 
Christ  is : what  the  Holy  Ghost  is ; or  what  they 
mean  by  u atonement,”  the  popular  answer  is,  u I 
believe  the  Bible  !”  We  have  never  yet  met  with 
an  Arian  who  could  tell,  clearly  and  fully,  what  he 
did  believe. 

III.  Arianism  shuns  investigation  ; or , in  other 
words , “ iiateth  the  light.”  Our  Lord  says,  John 
iii.  20,  21,  “For  every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth 
the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his  deeds 
should  be  reproved.  But  he  that  doeth  truth , com- 
eth to  the  light,  that  his  deeds  may  be  made  mani- 
fest, that  they  are  wrought  in  God  ” Now,  where 
does  modern  Arianism  stand,  according  to  this  rule  ? 
While  Trinitarians  come  out  fairly,  and  state  their 
belief  to  the  world,  and  make  a public  confession  of 
their  faith,  in  printed  articles ; modern  Arians  re- 
fuse to  give  us  as  much  as  a syllable  of  their  creed, 
on  a single  point  of  doctrine.  Now,  we  ask,  Which 
of  these  systems  “ cometh  to  the  light  ?”  Which  is 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


135 


it  that  dreads  the  result  of  close  investigation,  and 
shows  to  the  world  that  it  would  suffer  by  scrutiny  ? 

Again,  while  Arians  circulate  Kinkade’s  “ Bible 
Doctrine,”  and  Millard’s  “ True  Messiah,”  as  un- 
answerable productions  containing  their  views,  they 
refuse  to  be  held  responsible  for  a single  paragraph 
or  sentiment  therein  contained.  Are  we  not,  there- 
fore, justified  in  the  assertion,  that  Arianism  “hateth 
the  light ;”  and  hence  according  to  our  Saviour’s 
rule, “ doeth  evil,”  and  is  not  the  “ truth  V7 

IV.  Arianism  recognizes  at  least  three  distinct 
Gods,  who  sustain  to  each  other  the  relation  of  father , 
mother , and  son.  It  asserts  that  Christ  is  God  ; that 
he  is  a distinct  being  from  Jehovah  ; and  that  he  is  a 
natural  son  “born  into  existence.”  At  the  same 
time  it  admits  that  Christ  existed  before  the  world 
began.  Now  if  Christ  is  God,  and  is  a distinct  be- 
ing from  the  Father,  there  must  be  two  Gods;  and 
if  one  of  these  Gods  was  “born  into  existence”  before 
the  world  began,  as  Kinkade  asserts,  he  must  have 
had  a divine  mother  also.  Here  then  we  have  three 
Gods  at  least,  a father,  mother , and  son  ! ! How  much 
like  the  Pagan  theory  of  Jove , Juno , and  their  family. 

For  more  on  this  point  see  the  Chapter  on  “ The 
Unity  of  God.” 

Y.  Arianism  acknowledges  two  distinct  Saviours 
for  our  world.  God  says  by  Isaiah,  “ I am  the 
Lord  thy  God,  the  holy  one  of  Israel,  thy  Saviour.” 
“ I,  even  I,  am  the  Lord,  and  beside  me  there  is  no 
Saviour” — “ a just  God  and  a Saviour ; there  is 
none  beside  me.”  See  Isa.  xliii.  3,  11  ; and  xlv. 
15,  21.  Now  it  is  certain  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Saviour  of  the  world — of  “ all  men  ;”  but,  rather 
than  admit  that  he  is  the  God  and  Saviour  of  the  Old 
Testament,  the  one  only  Saviour;  Arians  tell  us,  that 
God  was  the  Saviour  under  the  old  dispensation. 


136 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


and  Christ,  a creature,  the  Saviour  of  the  new. 
Thus  we  have  two  Saviours  and  two  Redeemers. 

VI.  Arianism  endorses  some  of  the  worst  fea- 
tures of  Popery. 

The  first  of  these  is  idolatry . Romanists  assume 
that  it  is  right  to  pay  religious  worship  to  a creature  ; 
and  adopt  a definition  of  idolatry,  which  favors 
their  creature  worship.  Modern  Arianism  endorses 
this  theory.  It  adopts  the  same  false  definition  of 
idolatry  ; insists  that  it  is  right  to  make  a creature 
an  object  of  religious  worship  ; and  actually  wor- 
ships two  objects,  one  of  which  they  say  is  a crea- 
ture. 

Secondly , — It  endorses  the  doctrine  of  pardon  by 
delegation.  Papists  tell  us  that  God  can  delegate 
the  power  to  forgive  sins  to  his  creatures  ; and  that 
this  power  is  actually  entrusted  to  the  Catholic 
Church.  The  great  principle  here  involved  is 
sanctioned  by  Arianism.  It  teaches  that  God  au- 
thorized a creature , as  his  agent,  to  forgive  sins ; and 
that  when  Christ  forgave  sins,  he  did  it  merely  as 
God’s  delegate.  This  is,  substantially,  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  pardon  by  delegation. 

Thirdly , — Arianism  has  much  of  the  intolerance 
and  exclusiveness  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  They 
profess  to  be  very  catholic  in  their  feelings,  and 
ready  to  fellowship  almost  any  body,  and  they  also 
claim  to  let  their  members  believe  about  as  they 
please.  But  there  is  one  “ Shibboleth ” which  they 
must  all  pronounce  ; and  this  done,  other  matters 
are  of  little  consequence.  They  must  all  be  op- 
posed to  confessions  of  faith,  and  hostile  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  However  sound  a man 
may  be  in  morals  and  in  faith,  he  can  never  live  in 
the  Arian  fraternity  and  be  a Trinitarian.  Take 
the  following  in  proof  of  our  assertion. 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


137 


A number  of  Arian  preachers  met  in  a certain 
neighborhood  to  hold  a three-days  meeting.  In 
the  early  part  of  their  exercises  they  took  occasion 
to  decry  “ creeds,”  &c.,  as  usual,  and  to  assert  that 
in  their  church  every  man  could  believe  and  preach 
what  he  thought  to  be  the  truth,  without  incurring 
the  displeasure  of  “ Conferences,  Bishops,  or  Sy- 
nods.” A Trinitarian  preacher  who  heard  the 
statement,  concluded  to  try  an  experiment,  and  give 
these  liberalists  a chance  to  show  their  great  charity. 
Accordingly  he  made  known  his  desire  to  unite 
with  them,  as  a member  of  their  church,  on  condi- 
tion that  he  should  remain,  as  he  then  was,  a minis- 
ter. The  proposal  was  gladly  accepted,  and  he 
was  formally  admitted.  Of  course  their  new  min- 
ister must  take  part  in  the  exercises  of  the  occasion, 
and  as  a mark  of  respect  to  him,  and  of  encourage- 
ment to  others  that  might  follow  his  example,  it 
was  appointed  for  him  to  preach  on  Sabbath  morn- 
ing. The  time  arrived,  and  the  preacher  arose 
and  took  his  text ; — u There  are  three  that  bear  record 
in  heaven , the  Father , the  Word , and  the  Holy  Ghost , 
and  these  three  are  one.”  Every  eye  was  fixed 
on  the  speaker.  It  was  now  supposed  that  he  was 
about  to  renounce  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and 
in  this  public  manner  to  give  it  its  death-blow.  But 
what  was  the  consternation,  when  instead  of  pronoun- 
cing the  text  a forgery,  he  proceeded  to  vindicate  it 
as  the  genuine  portion  of  the  word  of  God,  and  to 
prove  and  defend  its  true  doctrine  before  the  people. 
Some  frowned ; some  interrupted  the  speaker  and 
attempted  to  stop  him  ; and  others  fled.  But  he  held 
on  his  way,  and  made  thorough  work  as  he  went. 
Having  concluded,  he  closed  his  meeting,  in  due 
form  and  according  to  custom.  No  sooner  had  he 
pronounced  the  benediction,  than  he  was  surrounded 
12* 


138 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


by  preachers  and  people,  who  seemed  much  displeased 
and  almost  ready  to  tear  him  in  pieces.  He  calmly 
inquired  the  reason  of  their  anger,  when  with  one 
voice  they  commenced  persecuting  him  for  his  be- 
lief. “ But  stop,  gentlemen,”  said  he ; “ did  you 
not  publish  in  this  congregation  on  Friday  last, 
that  in  your  church  every  man  could  take  the 
Bible  for  his  guide,  and  believe  and  teach  what  he 
thought  to  be  truth  ? If  this  Is  a specimen  of  your 
liberality  and  charity,  I think  it  is  best  for  me  to 
withdraw  from  your  church  and  so  saying,  he 
made  his  way  through  the  crowd  and  retired.  So 
much  for  Arian  liberty  and  tolerance. 

Take  another  circumstance.  The  very  name 
assumed  by  modern  Arians,  might  teach  us  what 
to  expect  of  them  by  way  of  charity.  They  style 
themselves  “The  Christian  Church  and  their 
Press,  at  which  they  publish  only  now  and  then  a 
book,  is  called  “ the  Book  Concern  of  the  Christian 
Church  ” They  arrogate  to  themselves  the  exclu- 
sive title  of  Christian , and  denounce  all  other  de- 
nominations as  anti-Christian.  They  ring  the 
changes  on  the  words  “ Trinity ” “Creeds”  “Chris- 
tian” and  “ Sectarian as  if  all  religion  was  in  a 
certain  name , and  in  opposing  all  other  names. 
But  why  this  great  ado  about  a name?  Was  not 
the  term  “ Christian”  a name  given  to  the  follow- 
ers of  Christ  in  derision,  by  their  enemies  at  Anti- 
och ? But,  it  is  replied,  “ it  is  a scriptural  name  ; 
and  Baptist,  Methodist,  and  Presbyterian,  are  anti- 
scriptural.”  But  what  is  meant  by  “ scriptural  ?” 
If  it  is  intended  to  assert  that  the  disciples  of  Christ 
were  named  Christians  by  the  Apostles,  or  by  Di- 
vine authority,  we  deny  it,  and  call  for  the  proof. 
It  is  said  the  disciples  were  called  Christians  first  at 
Antioch.  Bnt  who  called  them  so  ? Did  they 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


139 


call  themselves  so  ? or  did  their  enemies  call  them 
so.  in  order  to  reproach  them  as  followers  of  Christ  ? 
By  what  authority,  we  ask,  were  they  called  Chris- 
tians? Was  it  not  precisely  on  the  same  principle 
that  some  are  called  Lutherans,  Arminians,  Wes- 
leyans,  &c.  ? 

The  name  given  to  the  disciples,  as  a name  of 
reproach,  soon  spread  through  the  Roman  empire, 
and  the  disciples  became  generally  known  by  that 
name.  Hence  Agrippa  said  unto  Paul,  u Almost 
thou  persuadest  me  to  be  a Christian .”  But  the 
Apostle  does  not  acknowledge  the  title  as  of  Divine 
origin,  but  simply  says,  “ I would  to  God,  that  thou 
wert”  [not  a Christian ] but  u such  as  I am as  if 
discarding  the  name  by  which  the  disciples  were 
called  by  the  Roman  Governor. 

Again — Peter  says,  “ if  any  man  suffer  as  a Chris- 
tian, let  him  not  be  ashamed ; but  let  him  glorify 
God  on  this  behalf.”  Here  it  is  evident  that  the 
term  “ Christian ” was  a name  of  reproach,  other- 
wise it  would  have  been  written,  “ If  any  Chris- 
tian suffer,”  &c.,  instead  of,  “ If  any  man  suffer  as  a 
Christian as  if  Christian  was  a name  of  obloquy 
and  reproach.  In  time,  however,  believers  in  Christ 
acknowledged  this  name,  not  as  a Divine  appella- 
tion, but  as  a convenient  and  distinguishing  cogno* 
men.  In  this  sense,  and  in  this  only,  is  it  “ a scrip- 
tural name.”  But  are  there  not  a number  of  other 
names  quite  as  ^ scriptural”  as  Christian , if  not 
more  so  ? Are  not  believers  called  the  “ children 
of  Abraham” — “ the  sons  of  God,”  and  “ disciples,” 
by  Divine  authority  ? Were  not 66  Christians”  called 
u Galileans ,”  and  “ Nazarines  ?”  Tacitus,  an  ancient 
historian,  speaks  of  a low  or  vulgar  people,  called 
the  followers  of  Christ  or  Christians;  and  Josephus 
says,  that  “ the  tribe  of  Christians,  so  named  from 


140 


OBJECTIONS  TO  AETANISM. 


Christ , are  not  extinct  at  this  day.”  See  Ant.  Book 
xviii.j  Chap,  iii.,  Par.  3.  From  both  these  writers, 
it  is  clear  that  the  name  was  given  by  man,  and  not 
by  God. 

The  only  circumstance  that  renders  the  term  Chris- 
tian more  proper  than  either  of  the  above,  as  the 
name  of  a believer  in  Christ,  is  that  it  embodies  the 
name  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church  ; and  has  been 
used  in  all  ages  by  common  consent  to  designate 
his  followers.  The  first  of  these  circumstances 
doubtless  led  primitive  Christians  to  acknowledge 
the  title.  Venerable  as  is  the  name,  and  sacred  as 
are  its  associations,  it  is,  however,  far  from  being 
hallowed  by  the  authority  of  Heaven.  Where  then 
is  its  peculiar  sanctity  ? If  our  enemies  brand  us 
with  opprobrious  epithets,  what  difference  whether 
we  are  called  Christians  or  Lutherans,  Quakers  or 
Methodists  ? or  whether  we  are  so  called  first  at  An- 
tioch or  Oxford  2 But  “ the  Christian  Church”  deny 
that  they  use  the  term  Christian  in  a sectarian  sense ; 
hence,  to  distinguish  them  from  other  professions, 
they  have  been  known  in  most  parts  of  the  country 
by  the  name  of  “Chri-stians pronouncing  the  first 
2 long. 

Of  the  modesty  and  charity  of  their  course,  in 
calling  themselves  Christians,  as  a denominational 
title,  I will  not  stop  to  speak.  It  is  certain,  however, 
that  if  soundness  of  faith  and  holiness  of  life  are  the 
marks  of  a Christian,  they  are  not  the  only  Chris- 
tians in  the  world.  Saying  nothing  of  their  prac- 
tice, it  is  certain  that  their  faith  is  the  very  opposite 
of  the  Christians  of  Antioch.  The  following  re- 
marks, chiefly  from  a work  written  by  a Presby- 
terian minister  of  Philadelphia,  will  illustrate  this 
point : — 

1.  Real  Christians  worship  that  God  who  :s  a 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


141 


Spirit  The  Pagans  worship  a material  Jupiter, 
the  father  of  gods  and  men.  With  which  does 
Arianism  agree  ? Does  it  not  unblushingly  declare 
that  the  sole,  supreme,  Almighty  Father,  is  a mate- 
rial God  ? 

2.  Real  Christians  have  always  believed  God  to 
be  without  body  or  parts.  Kinkade  says,  “ This  is 
equal  to  Atheism.”  Which  creed  did  the  Pagans 
hold  7 Their  Jupiter , like  the  Arian  idol,  had  a 
body  and  parts. 

3.  Real  Christians  have  always  believed  that  the 
true  God  is  without  shape  or  figure.  The  Pagan 
Jupiter  had  a shape.  Which  is  the  Arian  creed  ? 
Mr.  K.  says,  u if  God  has  no  shape , he  has  no  real 
existence.” 

4.  The  Pagan  Jupiter  was  in  the  shape  of  a 
man.  Hence  the  priests  of  Jupiter  mistook  Paul 
and  Barnabas  for  their  gods,  Acts  xiv.  11,  and  were 
about  to  sacrifice  to  them.  They  said,  “ The  gods 
are  come  down  to  us  in  the  likeness  of  men ; and 
they  called  Barnabas  Jupiter,  and  Paul  Mercurius.” 
What  is  the  Arian  doctrine  on  this  point?  Mr. 
K.  and  his  followers  say,  a God  is  in  the  shape 
of  a man.”  Mr.  K.  says,  God  has  “ nearly  all 
the  members  of  the  human  body.  Ears , hands , 
and  eyes,  are  parts  of  an  intelligent  ruler,  and  if 
God  has  none  of  these,  he  cannot  hear,  handle,  nor 
see  us !” 

5.  The  Christian  Church  has  always  believed 
that  the  Divine  Father  had  a Divine  Son,  co-essen- 
tial, co-eternal,  and  co-equal  with  the  Father,  with- 
out the  intervention  of  any  mother,  human  or 
divine.  But  when  Jupiter  is  the  father  of  a Pagan 
God,  they  assign  him  a Divine  mother ; and,  when 
he  is  the  father  of  a demigod,  it  is  by  a human 
mother.  So  Mr.  K.  says,  “ Christ  could  not  have 


142 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


been  begotten,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
unless  he  had  a mother  as  well  as  a father.” 

These  are  some  of  the  enormities  of  a society 
calling  themselves  “ the  Christian  Church  !” 

Before  we  dismiss  this  objection,  allow  us  to 
introduce  an  item  of  personal  experience.  The 
writer  has  had  a fair  opportunity,  during  a few 
years  past,  to  visit  different  churches,  and  to  become 
acquainted  with  ministers  and  laymen  of  various 
denominations.  He  has  often  talked  with  Baptists, 
Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Lutherans,  Epis- 
copalians, Dutch  Reformed,  and  Quakers ; respect- 
ing their  peculiarities  in  doctrine  and  government ; 
and  he  can  truly  say,  that  of  all  people  he  ever  met 
with,  none  ever  betrayed  so  lamentable  a want  of 
charity  as  these  self-styled  Christians.  We  regret 
to  say  this,  but  truth  constrains  us.  They  assume 
a soft,  sweet,  innocent  name — they  talk  about 
“union'1  for  the  sake  of  advantage,  but  the  design 
of  all  is  to  break  up  other  churches,  in  order  to 
build  up  their  own  party.  If,  in  the  exercise  of 
your  own  judgment  and  prerogative,  you  venture  to 
think  and  act  for  yourself,  and,  in  so  doing,  cross 
their  track,  their  severest  censure  is  too  good  for 
y°u. 

We  do  think  therefore  that  if  gross  idolatry,  par- 
don by  delegation,  and  sectarian  exclusiveness  and 
intolerance,  are  among  the  “ marks  of  the  Beast,” 
Arianism  has  in  its  composition  some  of  the  foulest 
ingredients  of  Popery ; and,  if  we  may  know  a 
Christian  by  his  agreeing  in  doctrine  with  those  of 
Antioch,  Arians  should  be  among  the  last  to  assume 
that  innocent  name  as  a sectarian  title. 

VII.  Arianism  is  pointedly  reprobated  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  It  is  there  written,  “ Every 
spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


143 


in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God.  And  this  *s  that  spirit 
of  anti-christ,  whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  should 
come.”  u For  many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the 
world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh.  This  is  a deceiver  and  an  anti-christ.” 
But  Arianism  denies  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh.  It  denies  that  Christ  has  two  natures,  or 
that  the  pre-existent  Word  became  incarnate,  which 
is  precisely  the  doctrine  of  the  anti-christs  in  the 
above  texts. 

VIII.  Modern  Arianism  destroys  the  person- 
ality of  God,  angels,  and  disembodied  spirits.  In 
all  their  reasoning  on  the  persons  of  Deity,  they 
use  the  term  person  to  signify  a body.  Hence  by 
the  person  of  God  they  mean  his  body,  as  they  can- 
not admit  his  personality  without  giving  him  a body. 
Now  if  it  be  true  that  there  can  be  no  personality 
without  a body,  then  angels,  and  human  souls, 
during  the  intermediate  state,  have  no  personality  ; 
as  the  former  never  had  any  body,  and  the  bodies 
of  the  latter  are  dissolved,  to  slumber  in  the  dust  of 
the  earth  till  the  morning  of  the  resurrection. 

Again — If  a corporeal  body  is  essential  to  per- 
sonality, God  cannot  be  a “ person,”  for  God  is  a 
Spirit ;”  and  “ a spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,”  or 
a corporeal  body. 

IX.  Arianism  destroys  all  ground  of  trust  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  Christ  be  a mere 
creature , mutable  and  finite,  who  will  dare  to  trust 
their  souls  to  his  keeping,  for  time  and  eternity? 
Who  would  risk  all  for  both  worlds  on  the  pardon 
of  a creature  ? Kinkade  »ays,  Christ  u is  a created 
being , that  can  of  his  own  self  do  nothing,  and  change- 
able, and  capable  of  repentance If  he  is  u change- 
able,” he  may  change  his  mind  concerning  us ; his 
love  may  change  into  hatred,  and  his  mercy  into 


144 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


revenge.  The  pardon  he  has  given  us  may  be 
pronounced  insufficient,  and  he  may  abandon  us 
after  all  to  sink  into  hell. 

But  worse  still,  Mr.  K.  says  he  is  “ capable  of  re - 
pentance .”  If  he  is  capable  of  repentance,  he  must 
be  capable  of  sinning  ; and  if  capable  of  sinning,  he 
may  himself  become  the  victim  of  retributive  jus- 
tice, and  reap  the  wages  of  sin,  which  is  eternal 
death.  It  must  be  possible,  therefore,  not  only  that 
Christ  may  prove  recreant  to  his  trust  and  abandon 
those  that  confide  in  him,  but  he  may  even  sin 
against  God  himself,  and  like  the  fallen  angels  be 
damned  forever  ! This  is  a most  shocking  conclu- 
sion we  grant ; but  it  legitimately  grows  out  of  the 
Arian  doctrine,  and  justice  to  the  subject  and  to  the 
cause  of  God  requires  that  it  be  set  before  the  world 
in  its  true  light. 

But  is  this  the  Rock  on  which  the  Church  rests  ? 
Is  this  the  foundation  of  our  hope  of  eternal  life  ? 
Is  this  the  best  assurance  of  salvation  this  side  hea- 
ven ? Is  our  allotment  to  turn  for  heaven  or  hell, 
as  a changeable  creature  may  determine  ? Is  it  so, 
that  after  all  our  anxiety  and  solicitude — after  all  our 
confidence  and  joy  in  anticipation  of  heaven — after 
long  cherishing  u the  hope  of  glory,”  our  Saviour 
may  become  a sinner,  and  together  with  all  his 
followers  be  consigned  to  hopeless  perdition  ? Alas 
for  us,  if  this  is  our  only  trust ! 

But  we  are  not  thus  abandoned  to  despair.  While 
the  soul  stands  for  a moment  horror-stricken  and 
appalled  at  the  wreck  of  all  her  hopes,  the  next 
moment  she  turns  with  holy  gratitude  from  the 
desolation  and  ruin  of  modern  Arianism,  and 
anchors  herself  still  deeper  in  the  truth  of  God,  and 
the  merits  of  a Divine  Redeemer.  Again  the  fires 
of  devotion  are  rekindled.  Again  the  torch  of  im- 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


145 


mortal  hope  shines  on  her  otherwise  dark  passage 
through  this  world,  and  while  all  her  powers  find 
free  exercise  and  expansion,  in  contemplating  the 
incarnate  Word,  her  fears  are  hushed  in  silence — 
the  anxiety  of  the  disturbed  spirit  subsides  into  the 
tranquillity  of  heaven,  and  again  she  sings,  “Why 
art  thou  cast  down,  O my  soul  ? and  why  art  thou 
disquieted  within  me  ? Hope  thou  in  God,  for  I shall 
yet  praise  him,  who  is  the  health  of  my  countenance 
and  my  God.”  Blessed  be  God  for  a holy,  immu- 
table, eternal  and  almighty  Saviour ; and  blessed  be 
His  name  forever  and  ever ! 

X.  Arianism  denies  the  doctrine  of  atonement 
by  Jesus  Christ.  Our  limits  forbid  the  full  dis- 
cussion of  this  point,  but  we  can  say  enough  in  a 
few  paragraphs  to  show  the  force  of  the  objection. 

By  the  doctrine  of  atonement  we  mean  the  doc- 
trine that  Christ  died  for  us  as  a sin  offering  or  sat- 
isfaction to  divine  justice,  that  God  might  be  just, 
and  yet  justify  the  guilty.  Not  that  Christ  suffered 
in  amount  as  much  as  would  be  due  to  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world,  but  that  he  took  the  place  of  the 
sinner  so  far  as  to  suffer  in  his  stead  ; and  to  secure 
for  him  a second  period  of  trial  under  “ a better 
covenant;”  consistently  with  the  claims  of  justice, 
and  the  honor  of  the  law  of  God. 

That  Christ  suffered  for  us  as  our  substitute,  is  a 
doctrine  so  obvious  in  every  part  of  the  Bible,  as 
scarcely  to  require  proof.  The  following  passages, 
however,  may  be  adduced  as  specimens.  Of  Christ 
it  is  said,  “ He  was  delivered  for  our  offences — 
suffered  for  our  sins — died  for  our  sins — gave  him- 
self for  our  sins — offered  one  sacrifice  for  sin — 
died  for  all — was  made  a curse  for  us — bore  our  sins 
in  his  own  body  on  the  tree — bore  the  sins  of 
many — was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  was 
13 


140 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


bruised  for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our 
peace  was  upon  him,  and  by  his  stripes  we  are 
healed — the  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of 
us  all — for  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  [a  sin  of- 
fering] for  us  who  knew  no  sin — while  we  were 
yet  sinners  Christ  died  for  us — he  died  the  just  for 
the  unjust — he  gave  himself  a ransom  for  all,” 
&c,  From  all  these  passages  it  is  clear  that  Christ 
died  for  us  vicariously , as  a propitiation  or  atone- 
ment. 

But  this  is  flatly  denied  by  modern  Arians. 
Kinkade  says,  u this  doctrine  is  not  in  the  Bible. 
There  is  no  text  in  that  book  which  says,  he  made 
satisfaction  for  sinners,  or  that  he  bore  the  wrath  of 
God  that  was  due  to  sinners,  or  that  he  fulfilled  the 
law,  or  suffered  its  penalty  instead  of  sinners ; nor 
is  there  any  text  that  says  he  reconciled  God  to 
man.”  All  the  atonement  he  admits  of  is  that 
“ Christ  makes  an  atonement  for  sinners  by  means 
of  the  Gospel.”  His  theory  is,  that  the  broken  law 
of  God  requires  no  satisfaction  in  order  to  man’s  sal- 
vation— that  the  way  in  which  Christ  made  an 
atonement  was  to  a establish  that  system  of  religion 
by  which  we  may  be  cleansed  from  sin  and  recon- 
ciled to  God” — that  “ the  atonement  of  Christ  is  ac- 
complished in  believers  by  means  of  the  Gospel,” 
&c.  In  his  short  chapter  on  this  subject,  there 
seems  to  be  a design  to  equivocate,  and  an  attempt 
to  make  war  upon  the  common  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, without  dearly  avowing  his  own  theory,  or 
making  himself  responsible  for  any  thing.  Indeed, 
ambiguity  and  indefiniteness  characterize  his  whole 
performance  ; but  they  are  particularly  prominent 
here.  Still  he  has  said  enough  to  show  that  he  be- 
lieves in  no  atonement  by  Christ.  He  says  to  make 
an  atonement  is  to  'purify  and  reconcile  ; (mark  the 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


147 


order  ;)  and  that  this  atonement  is  “ accomplished 
in  believers  by  means  of  the  Gospel,”  that  is.  it  is 
“ regeneration ” effected  by  the  Spirit ! Hence  “ the 
atonement  of  Christ  could  not  apply  to  God,  or 
have  any  effect  on  him,”  and  God  could  have  been 
just  in  pardoning  the  sinner  without  the  death  of 
Christ. 

To  carry  the  system  out  he  insists  that  God  was 
never  unreconciled  to  man — that  only  one  of  the 
parties  needed  reconciliation,  and  that  we  are  “ re- 
conciled to  God”  not  “ by  the  death  of  his  Son,” 
but  by  a “ system  of  religion.”  This  doctrine  will 
be  readily  identified  as  that  of  the  Socinians  of 
Europe,  the  Boston  Unitarians,  the  Campbellites 
and  Mormons  of  the  West,  and  modern  Universal- 
ists.  It  is  a doctrine  directly  at  variance  with  the 
word  of  God,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  preceding  quo- 
tations ; and  it  saps  the  very  foundations  of  the 
Christian  religion.  If  there  is  no  atonement  but 
regeneration,  wrought  by  the  Gospel  “ system  of 
religion,”  where  was  the  necessity  of  the  death  of 
Christ  ? How  is  it  that  “ we  are  brought  nigh  by 
the  blood  of  Christ?” — are  “washed  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood?” — “ have  redemption  through  his* 
blood  and  remission  of  sins  ?”  and  have  peace 
“ through  the  blood  of  his  cross  ?”  How  was  Christ 
“delivered  for  our  offences?” — “bruised  for  our  in- 
iquities  ?” — “ made  a curse  for  us,”  &c.  Let  the 
reader  turn  back  to  the  Scriptures  quoted  at  the 
commencement  of  this  section,  and  see  if  one  of 
the  whole  number  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
Arian  notion  of  atonement.  We  object  to  it,  there- 
fore, as  an  unscriptural  and  dangerous  error ; sub- 
versive of  the  whole  scheme  of  salvation,  as  de- 
vised by  God,  and  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 

XI.  Arianism  takes  away  the  strongest  proof 


14S 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


of  human  resurrection.  St.  Paul  dwells  on  the 
resurrection  of  Christ,  as  the  main  proof  and  pledge 
of  human  resurrection.  See  1 Cor.  xv.  12 — 21. 
His  argument  is  based  upon  the  supposition  that 
Christ  was  in  one  nature  a human  being.  But  if 
he  had  no  humanity,  as  Arians  assert,  the  Apostle’s 
argument  is  good  for  nothing,  and  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  resurrection  of 
men.  How,  then,  are  we  begotten  u into  a lively 
hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead  V1 
How  are  life  and  immortality  brought  to  light  by 
the  Gospel  ? If  Christ  was  not  man  in  his  lower 
nature,  then  his  resurrection  was  no  proof  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  human  family;  and  the  Apos- 
tle’s argument  is  fallacious. 

XII.  Arianism  robs  God  of  the  honor  of 

CREATION  AND  PROVIDENCE,  AND  WHOLLY  EXCLUDES 
HIM  FROM  PARTICIPATION  IN  THE  AFFAIRS  OF  THIS 
WORLD. 

It  admits  that  Christ  created  and  upholds  all 
things — that  he  is  the  angel  Jehovah  of  the  Old 
Testament — that  most,  if  not  all  that  was  ever 
done  for  our  world  by  the  Powers  above,  was  done 
by  Jesus  Christ ; and  yet  it  asserts  that  he  is  not 
God  in  reality,  but  a mere  finite  and  dependent 
creature.  What  part,  then,  has  God  in  the  affairs 
of  this  world  ? or  what  right  to  the  honor  of  crea- 
tion and  providence  ? By  this  theory  “ the  God  of 
the  whole  earth”  is  a creature , and  the  God  of  the 
universe  is  a God  6C  afar  off”  and  u not  at  hand.” 
Hence  in  their  writings,  preaching,  and  prayers, 
Arians  represent  the  true  God  as  a being  having  a 
body , and  literally  sitting  on  a throne,  at  an  im- 
mense distance  from  our  globe.  How  different 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle,  that  “ God  is  not 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


149 


far  from  every  one  of  us  and  that  “ in  him  we 
live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being.” 

XIII.  Arianism  keeps  bad  company,  and  has  a 

STRONG  AFFINITY  FOR  OTHER  FORMS  OF  ERROR. 

It  unites  with  Pagans  in  si  pport  of  a material  God , 
with  hands  and  feet , parts  and  passions ; it  shakes 
hands  with  Mormonism  on  the  same  point ; it  re- 
sponds to  the  Popish  notion  of  creature  worship,  and 
of  pardon  by  proxy  ; and,  in  common  with  Deists, 
Universalists,  Hicksites,  Quakers,  and  Campbell- 
ites,  denies  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  atone- 
ment by  Jesus  Christ,  his  proper  Divinity,  the 
personal  existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the 
natural  depravity  of  man.  It  claims  as  its  abettors 
the  Jews,  who  denied  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus 
Christ,  blasphemed  his  name,  and  crucified  him  as 
a malefactor ; and  is  in  great  sympathy  with  Ma- 
hometans, who  worship  one  person  in  the  Godhead, 
and  divide  the  “ agency ” business  between  Christ 
and  Mahomet.  Hence  the  Mahometans  claim  the 
Unitarians  of  Europe  as  their  “ nearest  fellow- 
champions”  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ; 
and,  in  turn,  the  Unitarians  “ heartily  salute  and 
congratulate”  the  followers  of  the  Prophet,  u as  vo- 
taries and  fellow-worshippers  of  that  sole  Su- 
preme Deity,  the  Almighty  Father  and  Creator.” 
See  u Epistle  to  Ameth  Ben  Ameth,  Ambassador 
of  the  Emperor  of  Fez  and  Morocco,  to  Charles 
II.,  King  of  Great-Britain.” 

Thus  this  new  modification  of  error,  either  in- 
corporates, or  is  in  close  alliance  with,  almost  every 
species  of  heresy  that  has  ever  disturbed  the  peace 
of  the  Church. 

XIV.  Arianism  has  never  been  received  as 

TRUTH  BY  THE  CHURCH  OF  GoD. 

That  it  is  pointedly  reprobated  in  the  Scriptures, 
13* 


150 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


we  have  already  shown.  W e have  also  shown  that 
the  Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ; the 
humanity  and  Deity  of  Christ ; the  doctrine  of 
atonement ; and  the  personality  and  Divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  That  Arianism  has  never  been  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  can  easily  be  shown,  not  only 
from  Ecclesiastical  History  in  general,  but  from 
those  Confessions  of  Faith  which  she  has  published 
in  different  ages  of  the  world.  Whatever  may  be 
said  against  the  expediency  of  these  Confessions,  it 
will  not  be  denied  that  they  contain  a summary  of 
the  principal  articles  of  belief  in  the  Church  of 
Christ,  a.t  the  times  when  they  were  respectively 
issued.  The  orthodox  faith  in  the  primitive  Church 
may  also  be  ascertained,  in  part  at  least,  from  early 
Christian  writers. 

Irenseus,  who  flourished  within  100  years  of  the 
death  of  St.  John,  says,  “ The  faith  of  the  Church, 
planted  throughout  the  whole  world”  was,  that 
there  was  “ one  God  ; one  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of 
God,  who  became  incarnate  for  our  salvation  ; and 
one  Holy  Spirit and  he  calls  Christ  “ our  Lord 
and  God,  and  Saviour  and  King.” 

Tertullian  says,  A.  D.  200,  that  Christ  was  “both 
man  and  God.”  The  Apostles’  Creed,  which  was 
formed  as  early  as  the  latter  part  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, is  a Trinitarian  confession.  The  Nicene 
Creed,  that  was  issued  A.  D.  325,  was  designed  to 
show  the  true  faith  of  that  age,  in  opposition  to  the 
heresy  of  Arius.  The  object  for  which  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  Church  were  convened  at  Nice,  was 
to  arrest  the  Arian  heresy  ; and,  in  that  Council, 
it  is  condemned  and  proscribed  as  an  error.  The 
faith  of  the  Church  then  was,  (as  expressed  in  the 
Nicene  Creed,)  that  Jesus  Christ  was  verily  and 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


151 


really  “ Goa  • and  that  he  “ became  incarnate”  and 
“ was  crucified  for  us” 

The  Council  that  was  called  at  Constantinople, 
A.  D.  381,  expressed  themselves  still  more  decidedly 
against  the  Arian  heresy.  In  the  Council  of 
Ephesus,  in  the  year  431,  and  that  of  Chalcedon, 
451,  it  was  declared  as  their  faith,  that  “ Christ  was 
one  Divine  person,  in  whom  two  natures , the  human 
and  the  Divine , were  most  closely  united,  but  with- 
out being  mixed  or  confounded  together.” 

As  we  approach  the  year  606,  the  period  when 
Popery  was  established,  we  leave  the  main  body  of 
the  Church  with  her  corruptions  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, and  consult  only  those  branches,  which  are  ac- 
knowledged to  have  retained  a greater  degree  of 
purity.  The  Greek  Church  has  ever  discarded 
Arianism  as  false,  and  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  The  Waldenses  in  the  valleys  of  Pied- 
mont, say,  in  their  confession  of  A.  D.  1120,  “We 
believe  that  there  is  one  God,  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit.”  These  Christians  denounced  Popery 
with  all  its  abominations,  and  acknowledged  no 
other  rule  of  faith  than  the  Bible. 

The  Lutheran  confession  formed  in  1530,  asserts 
the  Divinity  of  Christ  ; the  doctrine  of  original 
sin  ; and  that  of  the  atonement.  The  Bohemic 
confession  of  1535  is  decidedly  Trinitarian.  The 
Saxon  of  1551  is  the  same,  as  also  the  Gallican  of 
1559,  the  Scotch  of  1560,  &c.,  &c. 

As  we  come  down  to  our  own  time,  and  consult 
the  confessions  of  the  different  denominations  that 
compose  the  Church  general,  we  find  the  prevail- 
ing faith  of  the  Protestant  world  to  be  directly  op- 
posed to  Arianism.  Episcopalians,  Methodists, 
Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Luthe- 
rans, Reformed  Dutch,  and  Orthodox  Quakers,  both 


152 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


m the  Old  and  the  New  World,  unite,  as  with  one 
voice,  in  rejecting  Arianism  as  an  error.  Now,  if 
the  Arian  doctrine  be  true,  how  are  we  to  account 
for  all  this?  We  have  the  most  conclusive  evi- 
dence, that  the  Church  in  every  age  has  borne  tes- 
timony against  it  as  false  ; and  that  even  at  the  pre- 
sent time,  nineteen-twentieths  of  all  the  professed 
Christians  on  earth  are  of  the  same  mind.  How  is 
it  that  Arianism  is  believed  by  but  few,  while  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  generally  received  by 
Protestant  Christians?  The  only  solution  of  this 
problem  is,  that  Arianism  is  not  of  God,  and  has 
no  support  from  the  Scriptures ; while  on  the  other 
hand,  God  favors  his  own  truth,  which  is  mighty 
and  prevails. 

XV.  Arianism  has  never  been  blessed  of  god 

AS  THE  INSTRUMENT  OF  EXTENSIVE  REFORMATION. 

Arius,  the  leader,  in  this  crusade  against  Christ, 
was  expelled  from  the  Church,  for  his  heresy,  A.D. 
325  ; and  when  about  to  be  restored  to  the  pale 
of  the  Church  by  imperial  authority,  was  taken  sud- 
denly ill,  and  died  before  his  restoration.  This  sud- 
den illness  was  regarded  as  a judgment  from  God, 
in  order  to  prevent  the  public  recognition  and  far- 
ther spread  of  his  ruinous  sentiments.  Ever  since 
that  period  the  frown  of  Heaven  has  seemed  to  rest 
on  the  Arian  cause.  It  has  found  but  few  adhe- 
rents in  any  age,  and  since  the  Reformation  the 
comparative  strength  of  this  party  has  been  gradu- 
ally diminishing.  None  of  the  great  Reformers  of 
past  centuries  have  been  Unitarians,  and  as  to  the 
revivalists  of  the  present  century,  there  are  no  Uni- 
tarians or  Arians  among  them  ; no,  not  one ! 

But  if  Arianism  be  true,  we  ask  again,  why  does 
it  not  prosper  ? It  has  been  long  enough  in  the 
world  ; its  votaries  have  triec  hard  enough  to  give 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


153 


it  currency,  but  all  to  no  purpose.  It  is  still  a mea- 
gre, sickly  plant,  and,  like  Jonah’s  gourd,  has  a 
worm  at  the  root. 

According  to  the  showing  of  Kinkade,  the  mem- 
bers of  all  the  Trinitarian  churches  in  the  land  are 
inhabitants  of  “ BABYLON,”  or  wicked  sinners. 
If  this  be  correct,  we  are  compelled  to  the  belief, 
that  after  a conflict  of  1,800  years,  error  has  ob- 
tained a permanent  ascendency  over  truth,  so  that 
only  one  of  twenty  that  profess  Christianity,  are 
any  better  than  Pagans  or  Atheists  ! This  is  too 
much  for  credulity  itself. 

It  was  well  said  by  one  of  old,  in  reference  to 
Christianity,  u If  this  counsel,  or  this  work,  be  of 
men,  it  will  come  to  naught : but  if  it  be  of  God, 
ye  cannot  overthrow  it.”  But  if  Arianism  be  true, 
the  counsel  and  truth  of  God  have  come  to  naught, 
while  it  has  been  impossible  to  overthrow  Trinita- 
rianism,  which  is  said  to  be  one  of  the  devices  of 
men.  Arians  feel  the  force  of  this  testimony 
against  them,  hence  it  is  a cardinal  point  in  all  their 
operations,  to  represent  their  cause  as  in  the  ascen- 
dency, or  at  least  rapidly  advancing. 

XYI.  In  the  absence  of  the  Divine  blessing , Arian- 

ISM  RESORTS  TO  UNJUSTIFIABLE  AND  WICKED  MEANS 
TO  SUSTAIN  ITSELF. 

So  far  as  we  know,  it  has  never  depended  upon 
converts  from  among  the  wicked,  to  replenish  its 
wasting  ranks.  This  would  be  to  place  their  exist- 
ence as  a body  upon  a dubious  issue,  for  it  is  well 
known  that  they  would  immediately  dwindle  away, 
had  they  no  other  resources  than  what  sinners  they 
could  bring  to  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ. 
Their  main  dependence  therefore,  as  a sect,  is,  to 
pick  up  disaffected  and  expelled  members  of  other 
churches,  and  enrol  them  under  their  banner. 


154 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM 


It  is  said  of  David  at  a certain  time,  that  u every 
one  that  was  distressed,  and  every  one  that  was  in 
debt,  and  every  one  that  was  discontented,  gathered 
themselves  unto  him ; and  he  became  a captain 
over  them.”  So  in  respect  to  the  Arian  party.  It 
is  composed  to  a great  extent  of  discontented  and 
restless  spirits,  who  have  either  been  cut  off  in  the 
exercise  of  a scriptural  and  wholesome  church  dis- 
cipline, or  are  restive  and  impatient  under  its  re- 
straints, and  ready  to  embrace  any  system  that  will 
give  greater  license  both  in  faith  and  practice. 
Such  being  the  materials  of  which  this  sect  is  com- 
posed, we  can  easily  account  for  the  constant  war 
upon  creeds  and  church  government,  both  by 
preachers  and  people.  Expelled  members  gene- 
rally turn  against  the  church  that  excludes  them, 
and  complain  of  the  discipline  by  which  they  are 
condemned.  Hence  by  opposing  creeds  and  tear- 
ing other  churches  in  pieces,  Arianism  not  only 
gets  into  sympathy  with  expelled  persons,  but  in- 
creases the-  number  of  the  disaffected  and  restless, 
the  very  materials  of  which  the  sect  is  mainly  com- 
posed. 

But  in  order  to  allay  suspicions,  and  spread  a kind 
of  salvo  over  the  poison  ; much  is  said  about 
“ union,”  even  while  they  are  concocting  plans  to 
rend  societies  and  churches  in  pieces.  In  order  to 
unite  the  heterogeneous  elements  that  are  thus 
called  together,  it  is  found  necessary  to  dispense 
with  Confessions  of  Faith,  and  in  order  to  keep 
those  that  are  thus  enlisted,  they  must  be  wholly  free 
from  the  restraints  of  church  government,  and  the 
pruning  knife  of  discipline.  Hence  the  cry  of  u no 
creeds,  no  discipline.” 

On  candidly  surveying  this  whole  system  of 
operations — the  effort  to  create  disaffection,  and 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


155 


break  up  other  churches  by  sowing-  discord  among- 
brethren — the  war  upon  creeds  and  church  govern- 
ment, and  the  formation  of  a party  without  either — 
the  picking  up  of  expelled  members — the  constant 
effort  to  get  into  notice  by  “ challenges”  and  “ de- 
bates,” and  by  alledging  that  some  great  man,  or 
respectable  body  of  men,  have  noticed  them — the 
use  that  is  made  of  public  controversies,  and  the, 
one-sided  course  of  the  Arian  paper — in  view,  we 
say,  of  this  entire  system  by  which  Arianism  la- 
bors to  sustain  itself,  we  can  but  believe  that  it  is  er- 
ror and  not  truth.  If  it  were  of  God,  no  such  means 
would  be  necessary  to  sustain  it,  and  the  Arian  party 
might  grow  up  by  the  preaching  of  its  doctrines 
to  sinners,  without  tearing  Christian  churches  in 
pieces,  or  gathering  up  excluded  members  that  have 
been  thrown  over  the  walls  of  Zion. 

We  never  knew  an  instance  where  Arianism  got 
any  foothold  at  all,  unless  it  was  by  just  such 
means  as  are  above  described  ; and,  when  it  has 
done  all  it  can,  according  to  the  above  system,  and 
is  obliged  to  rely  upon  the  preaching  of  its  doc- 
trines, and  the  blessing  of  God  in  the  conversion 
of  sinners  for  its  support,  it  uniformly  withers  and 
dies. 

XVII.  Arianism  outrages  philosophy,  reason, 

REVELATION,  CONSISTENCY,  AND  COMMON  SENSE. 

It  represents  “the  next  greatest  being  in  the  uni- 
verse to  God,”  as  losing  his  knowledge,  so  that  he 
could  “increase  in  wisdom”  in  this  world  ; it  ac- 
counts for  the  origin  of  this  being,  who  is  “ ten  thou- 
sand times  greater  than  all  the  men  on  earth,  and 
all  the  angels  in  heaven,”  by  saying  that  he  was 
“ born  into  existence  ;”  and  represents  this  pre-exis- 
tent Spirit  as  being  changed  into  the  flesh  of  Christ. 
It  asserts  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  actually  died ; it 


156 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANISM. 


represents  the  infinite  Jehovah  as  having  a wife  and  a 
natural  son  six  thousand  years  ago ; and  gives  Christ 
all  power  without  all  knowledge.  It  teaches  that 
God  sees  with  natural  eyes,  and  the  use  of  light,  as 
man  sees,  (which  would  hinder  his  seeing  but  one 
side  of  the  earth  at  a time,)  and  also  that  he  hears 
with  u ears,”  which  implies  that  we  must  speak  loud 
enough  to  have  the  sound  go  from  earth  to  the 
third  heaven,  in  order  to  be  heard.  It  gives  him  a 
“hand”  as  large  as  a man’s  hand,  in  the  “ hollow” 
of  which  he  measures  the  deep,  and  by  the 
“ span”  of  which  he  “ metes  out  the  heavens.”  It 
gives  him  literal  “ legs,”  and  “ feet,”  and  a “ foot- 
stool and,  although  his  “ feet”  and  “ hands”  are 
said  to  be  like  those  of  a man,  he  covered  the  whole 
of  Moses  with  his  hand,  and  his  footstool  is  25,000 
miles  in  circumference,  and  millions  of  miles  from 
the  “literal  throne”  where  the  “ body ” is  said  to  be 
“ sitting.”  It  represents  Christ  as  creating  himself ; 
as  liable  to  sin  and  to  go  to  hell ; and  as  upholding 
all  things  while  dead.  It  denies  that  we  are  to 
identify  objects  by  their  attributes ; makes  the 
Devil  omnipresent ; contradicts  Christ  and  the  in- 
spired writers,  and  all  who  knew  Christ  while  on 
earth,  on  the  point  of  his  being  man ; and  contra- 
dicts Moses,  who  ascribes  creation  to  God  only.  It 
represents  a being  infinitely  higher  than  angels, 
and  without  a human  nature,  as  tempted  in  all  faints 
like  man  ; thus  implying,  that  angels  and  the 
spirits  of  the  just  may  still  be  tempted.  It  gives  us 
a Redeemer  who  is  not  a kinsman  according  to  the 
law  of  God,  and  an  “ elder  brother”  who  is  in  no 
way  connected  with  the  family  of  man.  It  admits 
of  two  omnipotent,  and  three  omnipresent,  beings ; 
and  represents  a creature  as  sending  the  soul  of  the 
Father  out  of  his  body  into  this  world.  It  represents 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


157 


the  Father  as  sending  himself  in  the  name  of  a crea- 
ture ; and  teaches  that  we  are  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  a creature,  and  the  Father’s  soul  l 
It  rejects  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  because  it  is  a 
mystery,  and  embraces  a system  that  is  acknow- 
ledged to  be  full  of  mystery.  It  makes  reason  a 
test  of  revelation,  and  rejects  as  false  all  that  feeble, 
blinded  reason  cannot  comprehend.  It  makes  war 
upon  the  Bible,  by  adding  a capital  G to  the  word 
“god”  wherever  it  occurs;  by  rejecting  numerous 
passages  as  forged  ; and  entirely  perverting  many 
others.  It  represents  Trinitarians  as  forging  a text 
to  prove  a Trinity,  and  then  asserts  that  the  text 
says  nothing  about  the  Trinity.  It  makes  Christ  a 
dishonest  Agent,  creating  for  himself  instead  of  his 
employers  ; and  by  asserting  that  “ the  idea  of  a 
person , and  the  idea  of  a being  are  both  one  idea,” 
it  teaches  that  all  beings  are  persons,  even  to  beasts, 
birds,  fish,  insects,  and  reptiles.  It  affirms  that  God 
delegated  almighty  power  to  a “ changeable”  crea- 
ture that  was  “ capable  of  repentance,”  and  declares 
that  a “ body”  is  a person ; and  that  dignity  and 
authority  are  Divinity.  It  condemns  its  own  “ Dis- 
cipline” as  in  part  “ a forgery,”  and  while  it  pro- 
fesses to  be  very  catholic  and  liberal,  is  most  un- 
charitable and  intolerant.  It  talks  much  of  “ union f 
and  yet  glories  in  discord  and  division.  It  com- 
plains much  of  persecution,  and  is  always  perse- 
cuting others.  It  denounces  all  “ creeds,”  “ confes- 
sions,” and  “ sects,”  for  the  sole  purpose  of  destroying 
existing  churches,  and  establishing  another  set  of 
doctrines  and  another  sect.  Thus  is  philosophy, 
reason,  revelation,  consistency,  and  common  sense, 
outraged  and  trampled  upon  by  the  very  principles 
and  spirit  of  modern  Arianism. 

XVIII.  Finally , This  wild  and  extravagant  sys- 
14 


158 


OBJECTIONS  TO  ARIANJSM 


TEM  UTTERLY  EXCLUDES  GoD  AND  CHRIST  FROM  THE 
Church,  and  from  the  world. 

In  illustrating  his  views  of  the  omnipresence  of 
God,  Kinkade  says — “ A great  king  may  fill  a 
country  with  his  armies,  military  stores,  laws,  and 
officers,  while  his  person  [by  which  he  means  his 
body]  will  not  fill  one  house.  So  God  can  fill 
heaven  and  earth  with  his  armies,  his  power,  his 
infinite  riches,  and  perfections,  till  they  are  lighted 
with  his  glory,  while  at  the  same  time  his  blessed 
person  [ i . e.  his  body]  is  seated  on  his  glorious 
throne  with  his  Son  at  his  right  hand.”  If  this  is 
the  sense  in  which  God  is  omnipresent,  he  has 
never  yet  visited  our  world  himself,  but  has  mere- 
ly sent  his  “ armies,”  &c. 

But  it  is  asserted  that  he  has  sent  a creature  as  his 
Agent,  bearing  the  titles  of  “ Lord,”  “ God,”  “ the 
Almighty,”  “ Jehovah,”  “ the  mighty  God,”  &c., 
and  that  this  Agent  is  to  do  God’s  business  for  him 
in  this  world,  “ as  if  a rich  merchant  in  New- York 
should  send  his  son  to  do  business  for  him,  as  his 
agent,  with  the  people  in  London.”  But  suppose 
this  son  should  run  away,  and  go  to  China,  would 
the  merchant  then  be  in  London  even  by  his  repre- 
sentative ? Certainly  not.  But  what  says  Arianism 
about  their  imaginary  Agent?  It  teaches,  1st. 
That  he  never  visited  the  earth  till  4,000  years 
after  it  was  created.  2d.  That  he  had  but  one  na- 
ture, and  being  mortal,  actually  died  soul  and  body, 
while  on  his  agency.  3d.  That  though  he  had 
been  here  but  a few  years,  when  he  came  to  life 
again,  he  left  us,  soul  and  body,  and  went  back 
and  sat  down  on  the  throne  with  his  Father  ; and 
that  ever  since,  the  Father  has  sat  “on  his  glorious 
throne,  with  his  Son  at  his  right  hand” 

Now,  if  Christ  had  but  one  nature , and  that  nature 


STATED  AND  URGED. 


159 


died,  rose,  and  ascended  ; he,  like  the  Father,  must 
now  be  here  by  proxy,  or  not  at  all.  We  have 
then  neither  the  Son  nor  the  Father  ; the  Agent  or 
his  Employer.  We  are  left  a poor  revolted  pro- 
vince of  God’s  dominions,  without  a God  or  a Sa- 
viour— a Christless  Church  and  a Christless  world  !! 
Whatever  other  systems  may  be  invented,  may  the 
Lord  deliver  us  from  the  Atheism,  blasphemy,  and 
absurdity  of  modern  Arianism  ! 

Having  thus  stated  some  of  the  principal  objec- 
tions to  this  heresy,  as  it  appears  with  its  new 
modifications  and  additions,  we  shall  now  sum  up 
the  entire  argument,  and  bring  our  remarks  to  a 
close. 


On  the  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  it  has 
been  shown,  in  the  preceding  pages,  that  there  is 
but  one  God  ; that  Jesus  Christ  has  two  natures ; 
that  in  one  nature  he  is  man , consisting  of  body  and 
soul ; that  in  his  higher  and  pre-existent  nature  he 
is  verily  and  really  God  ; that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God  ; and,  as  a person  in  the  Godhead,  is  as  distinct 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  as  the  Son  is  from 
the  Father  ; that  while  the  Scriptures  reveal  one 
God  only , they  reveal  three  distinct  persons , of  one 
substance,  power,  eternity,  and  Divinity  ; the  Fa- 
ther, the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  that 
therefore,  these  Three  Divine  Persons  must  co-exist 
as  One  Being , constituting  the  one  living  and  incom- 
prehensible Jehovah. 

We  have  also  shown  that  we  are  not  left  to  rea- 
son alone  on  this  all-important  subject.  Though 
it  is  perfectly  clear  from  reason,  that  if  there  is  but 
one  God,  and  yet  three  equally  Divine  persons, 
these  persons  must  constitute  the  one  God ; still  the 
Scriptures  forestall  reason  in  its  verdict,  and  remove 


160 


CONCLUSION. 


all  the  apparent  difficulties  growing  out  of  the  unity 
and  plurality  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  by  declar- 
ing that  the  plurality  of  persons  exist  in  unity  of 
nature  and  essence , as  one  supreme  and  everlasting 
God.  The  objections  to  this  doctrine  have  also  been 
considered,  and  shown  to  be  futile  and  groundless. 

In  respect  to  modern  Arianism,  we  have  not  only 
unveiled  its  general  features  as  we  passed  along, 
but  have  shown  specifically  that  it  is  of  suspicious 
origin — a system  of  negativism  rather  than  a sys- 
tem of  faith  ; that  it  shrinks  from  investigation  ; re- 
cognizes three  distinct  Gods,  and  two  distinct  Sav- 
iours ; endorses  some  of  the  worst  features  of  Popery ; 
is  the  very  opposite  of  real  Christianity  ; is  point- 
edly reprobated  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ; destroys 
the  personality  of  God,  angels,  and  disembodied, 
spirits  ; and  all  ground  of  trust  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  It  denies  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  and  of 
natural  depravity  ; encourages  a loose  state  of  mor- 
als by  lowering  our  views  of  the  evil  of  sin  ; de- 
stroys the  strongest  motives  for  love  to  God  and 
Christ ; weakens  the  very  foundations  of  Christian- 
ity ; takes  away  the  strongest  proof  of  human  resur- 
rection ; robs  God  of  the  honor  of  creation  and 
providence  ; has  a strong  affinity  for  other  forms  of 
error  ; has  never  been  received  as  truth  by  the 
Church  of  God  ; has  never  been  blessed  of  God  as 
the  means  of  extensive  reformation  ; resorts  to  un- 
justifiable means  to  sustain  itself ; outrages  philos- 
ophy, reason,  revelation,  consistency,  and  common 
sense ; and  wholly  excludes  God  and  Christ  from 
the  Church  and  from  the  world ! 

Such  are  the  proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ; 
and  such  the  rocks  and  quicksands,  the  whirlpools 
and  tempests,  of  modern  Arianism.  We  have  rear- 
ed up  our  beacon  light  upon  its  dark  and  danger- 


CONCLUSION. 


161 


ous  coast,  and,  if  others  pass  on  to  destruction,  we 
are  clear  of  their  blood.  Our  duty  is  done  in  the 
fear  of  God,  and  the  reader  must  judge  and  act  for 
himself  If  he  is  a Trinitarian,  our  prayer  is,  that 
this  small  volume  may  confirm  him  still  more  in 
the  truth  of  God,  and  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  has  unhappily 
fallen  into  error,  and  denied  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  and  the  Divinity  of  Christ — if  he  has  been 
deceived  by  the  ambiguity  of  modern  Arianisra, 
and  induced,  by  the  cunning  and  artifice  of  its  vo- 
taries, to  give  his  assent  to  doctrines  that  he  did  not 
fully  understand,  let  him  assert  his  liberty  as  a man 
and  a Christian,  and  renounce  this  dangerous  sys- 
tem at  once  and  forever.  Stop  not  in  view  of 
your  former  sentiments,  the  frown  of  your  associates 
and  leaders,  or  the  opinions  of  men.  You  have  a 
soul  to  save  or  lose;  and  your  course  in  this  mat- 
ter has  much  to  do  with  your  eternal  welfare.  See 
to  it,  then,  ‘we  beseech  you,  that  you  “ buy  the 
truth,”  even  though  it  might  cost  you  the  mortifica- 
tion of  acknowledging  your  error ; the  pain  of  being 
reproached  and  persecuted  for  the  truth’s  sake  ; or 
even  life  itself.  May  the  Lord  help  you  to  resolve, 
before  you  lay  aside  this  book,  that  you  will  here- 
after avow  a different  faith,  and  pursue  a different 
course  as  to  this  great  question. 

But  be  that  as  it  may,  we  repeat  it,  we  are  in  no 
way  responsible  for  your  soul.  We  have  spoken 
plainly  and  freely  upon  this  great  subject : and  we 
again  take  you  to  record,  that  so  far  as  this  bewil 
dering  and  dangerous  error  is  concerned,  if  you  go 
on  in  error  and  finally  perish,  your  blood  is  upon 
your  own  head. 

The  writer  has  been  called,  in  the  providence  of 
God,  to  encounter  Arianism  in  various  forms,  and 
14* 


162 


CONCLUSION. 


on  various  occasions.  He  has  seen  it  sweep  along 
for  a day,  like  the  fatal  sirocco  of  the  desert,  deso- 
lating every  thing  in  its  path  ; while,  at  other  times, 
it  has  moved  with  a more  cautious  and  steady  step 
through  neighborhoods  that  were  peaceful  and 
prosperous  in  religion  ; that  its  aim  might  be  more 
certain,  and  its  ruin  more  complete.  In  both  cases 
its  course  has  been  like  that  of  the  locusts  of  Egypt, 
that  “left  no  green  thing  behind.”  For  lifting  up 
his  voice  against  this  error,  he  has  more  than  once 
been  obliged  to  suffer  the  most  bitter  persecution, 
and  to  meet  the  poisoned  shafts  of  calumny  and  in- 
vective. He  has  had  a fair  chance  to  learn  the  na- 
ture and  tendency  of  this  error,  both  in  theory  and 
practice. 

With  a single  eye  to  the  glory  of  God,  he  has 
now  borne  his  public  and  unequivocal  testimony 
against  modern  Arianism.  This  done,  he  has  only 
to  appeal  his  cause  to  the  upper  tribunal — to  the 
judgment  of  the  great  day — and  await  the  issue. 
May  the  Lord  help  both  the  reader  and  writer 
to  walk  in  the  paths  of  truth  and  holiness ; that 
when  the  toils  and  sufferings  of  life  are  over,  and 
“the  bitterness  of  death  is  past,”  we  may  meet  with 
all  the  sanctified  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

“ There  we  shall  see  and  hear  and  know 
Ail  we  desired  or  wished  below ; 

And  every  hour  find  sweet  employ, 

In  that  eternal  world  of  joy.” 

And  now  to  the  ever  blessed  and  adorable  Trin- 
ITY — the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost — be  honor 
and  praise,  dominion  and  power,  forever  and  ever. 
Amen, 


HUNTINGTON  AND  SAVAGE, 

AND 

MASON  AND  LAW, 

PUBLISHERS, 

23  PARK  ROW,  opposite  the  Astor  House, 

Solicit  the  attention  of  School  Committees,  Superintendents, 
Principals  of  Academies,  High  Schools,  and  Teachers 
generally,  to  the  following  Text  Books. 

A PRIMARY  ASTRONOMY,  for  Schools  and  Families.  By  H. 
Mattison,  Professor  of  Natural  Philosophy  and  Astronomy  in  the  Falley 
Seminary.  168  pages  12mo,  with  200  engravings. 

MATTISON’S  ELEMENTARY  ASTRONOMY.  With  Illus- 
trations, colored. 

MATTISON’S  ASTRONOMICAL  MAPS.  16  sheets,  each  38  by 
44  inches,  beautifully  colored,  and  mounted  on  rollers. 

BURRITT’S  GEOGRAPHY  OF  THE  HEAVENS.  With  a 
Celestial  Atlas,  revised  and  corrected  by  Professor  Mattison,  and  enriched 
with  many  new  Illustrations. 

MITCHEL’S  BURRITT’S  GEOGRAPHY  of  the  HEAVENS. 

CHART  OF  ARITHMETICAL  TABLES,  compiled  by  Professor 
Mattison,  consisting  of  Twenty  distinct  Tables,  multiplication,  numera- 
tion, &c.,  &c.,  on  one  sheet,  3 feet  8 inches  by  4 feet  8 inches,  neatly  put 
up  on  rollers,  for  the  use  of  the  school-room.  Price  two  dollars. 

THE  NATIONAL  GEOGRAPHY.  New  edition,  with  the  Census 
of  J850,  illustrated  in  the  most  beautiful  manner.  This  work  is  concise, 
yet  complete  ; strongly  and  durably  bound,  and  in  all  respects  executed 
in  beautiful  style ; yet  the  cheapest  hook  in  the  market. 

PETER  PARLEY’S  NEW  GEOGRAPHY  FOR  BEGINNERS. 

GOODRICH’S  PRIMER  OF  GEOGRAPHY. 

GOODRICH’S  PRIMER  OF  HISTORY,  for  beginners  at  home  and 
school.  Illustrated  by  maps  and  engravings. 

PICTORIAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

PICTORIAL  HISTORY  OF  FRANCE. 

PICTORIAL  HISTORY  OF  ENGLAND. 

PICTORIAL  HISTORY  OF  GREECE. 

PICTORIAL  HISTORY  OF  ROME. 


HUNTINGTON  AND  SAVAGE’S  TEXT  BOOKS. 


FITCH’S  CHOROGRAPHY ; or  Plates  with  the  Lines  of  Latitude 
and  Longitude  drawn  on  the  same  scale  as  the  maps  in  the  National 
Geography,  to  be  filled  up  by  the  pupil.  A most  useful  and  instructive 
exercise . 

WEBSTER’S  DICTIONARY.  University  edition. 

WEBSTER’S  ACADEMIC  QUARTO  DICTIONARY. 

WEBSTER’S  HIGH  SCHOOL  PRONOUNCING  DIC- 
TIONARY. 

WEBSTER’S  PRIMARY  SCHOOL  PRONOUNCING  DIC- 
TIONARY. 

WEBSTER’S  DICTIONARY.  Pocket  edition. 

PINNEY’S  FIRST  BOOK  IN  FRENCH. 

PINNEY’S  FIRST  BOOK  IN  FRENCH,  with  a Key. 

KEY  TO  THE  PRACTICAL  FRENCH  TEACHER. 

PINNEY’S  PROGRESSIVE  FRENCH  READER. 

PINNEY  & BADOIS’S  PRACTICAL  FRENCH  TEACHER. 
New  edition,  greatly  improved,  from  entirely  new  plates. 

WEBB’S  NORMAL  READERS,  in  four  numbers,  on  a new  plan. 
One  of  the  most  distinguished  Principals  in  one  of  the  Ward  Schools  in 
the  city  of  New  York  says,  in  a letter  to  the  publishers,  that  in  his  school 
they  can,  with  Mr.  Webb’s  system,  in  four  weeks,  accomplish  what 
usually  takes  a year  under  the  old  system. 

ENGINEERS’  AND  MECHANICS’  COMPANION. 

THE  ENGINEERS’,  CONTRACTORS’,  AND  SURVEYORS’ 
POCKET  TABLE-BOOK. 

THE  YOUTH’S  SONG  BOOK.  By  I.  B.  Woodbury.  This  popular 
work  has  been  thoroughly  revised,  and  greatly  enriched  by  the  addition 
of  Songs  of  rare  excellence,  yet  simple,  and  adapted  to  the  wants  of 
children  and  youth. 

PUTNAM’S  ELEMENTARY  ENGLISH  GRAMMAR.  New 

edition,  revised  and  corrected  by  David  Price. 

MRS.  LINCOLN’S  BOTANY. 

THE  SUNDAY-SCHOOL  MUSIC  BOOK.  By  I.  B.  Woodbury. 

THE  AMERICAN  MUSICAL  REVIEW.  Monthly.  Edited  by 
I.  B.  Woodbury.  Price  50  cents  per  annum. 

THE  DULCIMER;  OR,  THE  NEW  YORK  COLLECTION 
OF  SACRED  MUSIC. 

THE  PRACTICAL  SCHOOL  ARITHMETIC.  Prepared  by  the 
Principal  of  the  Associate  Academy  of  New  York,  and  revised  by 
David  Price. 


A PRIMARY  ASTRONOMY, 

For  Schools  and  Families : adapted  to  the  capacities  of  Youth,  and 
Illustrated  by  over  Two  Hundred  Engravings.  By  Hiram  Matti- 
son,  Professor  of  Natural  Philosophy  and  Astronomy  in  the  Falley 
Seminary,  &c. 

This  is  a small  12mo  book  of  168  pages— a regular  Spelling-book” 
of  Astronomy— containing  the  essence  of  the  science  in  few  words,  and 
so  illustrated  that  the  pupil  must  understand  it.  The  main  text  is  in 
Questions  and  Answers,  printed  in  a bold,  handsome  type;  and  the 
cuts,  of  which  there  are  over  two  hundred , are  inserted  in  the  pages 
with  the  type,  and  in  immediate  connection  with  the  matter  to  be  il- 
lustrated. 

Whenever  it  is  necessary  to  explain  a diagram,  and  to  show  how  it 
illustrates  the  subject  in  hand,  the  explanation  required  is  inserted  in 
smaller  type,  either  by  the  side  of  the  cut,  on  the  same  page,  or  im- 
mediately under  it.  These  notes  and  remarks,  descriptive  of  the  dia- 
grams, &.C.,  are  to  be  read  and  studied , but  not  committed  to  memory; 
as  they  form  no  part  of  the  main  text.  In  using  the  book  in  schools, 
students  should  be  required  to  draw  the  diagrams  of  the  lesson  as  they 
occur  upon  the  blackboard,  and  to  explain  how  they  illustrate  or 
demonstrate  the  point  in  hand.  The  insertion  of  cuts  in  connection 
with  Questions  and  Answers,  and  the  exercise  of  the  class  in  Drawing 
and  oral  explanations  during  recitation,  are  entirely  new  features  in  a 
text-book  on  Astronomy ; and  such,  it  is  believed,  as  will  give  the 
“ Primary”  great  practical  advantages  over  books  constructed  upon  a 
different  plan. 

Another  valuable  feature  of  this  work  is,  that  ail  difficult  words  are 
pronounced  and  defined , at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  and  in  most  cases 
traced  to  their  original  source.  In  short,  it  is  intended  to  be  all  that 
can  be  desired  as  a First  Book  in  Astronomy,  especially  for  the  Family 
and  the  Primary  School.  A more  beautiful , entertaining , and  useful 
book  for  presentation  to  the  young  could  scarcely  be  selected.  Price 
31  cents. 


AN  ELEMENTARY  ASTRONOMY, 

For  Academies  and  Schools:  Illustrated  by  numerous  Original  Dia- 
grams, and  adapted  to  use  either  with  or  without  the  author’s  Large 
Maps  : 12mo,  244  pages.  Tenth  edition,  with  Questions,  &c. 

This  work  is  written  in  the  didactic  style,  with  Questions  for  Review 
in  the  Appendix,  and  is  much  more  full  and  extended  than  the 
u Primary  Astronomy .”  It  contains  a description  of  all  the  Constella- 
tions, with  the  number  of  stars  in  each,  and  is  every  way  adapted  to  a 
higher  grade  of  Schools,  and  a more  advanced  class  of  pupils  than 
those  for  whom  the  Primary  was  designed. 

The  book  is  illustrated  by  nineteen  colored  engravings , the  full  size 
of  the  page,  to  which  constant  reference  is  had  for  illustration  through- 
out the  work.  No  better  evidence  of  its  value  can  be  desired  than  the 
fact  that  50,000  copies  have  already  been  sold,  and  it  is  now  the 
chosen  text-book  in  Astronomy  in  forty-seven  of  the  Academies  under 
the  Regents  of  the  University  of  this  State.  Price  50  cents. 


ASTRONOMICAL  MAPS, 

Adapted  to  use  with  the  “ Elementary  Astronomy,”  and  designed  to 
illustrate  the  Mechanism  of  the  Heavens.  For  the  use  of  Public  Lec- 
turers, Private  Learners,  Academies,  and  Schools.  By  Professor 
H.  Mattison. 

This  series  consists  of  sixteen  Maps,  or  Celestial  Charts,  each  38  by 
44  inches,  representing  the  various  appearances  of  the  Heavenly 
Bodies — the  Sun,  Moon,  Planets,  Comets,  and  Fixed  Stars — and  illus- 
trating the  laws  which  govern  them  in  their  motions,  the  philosophy  of 
Tides,  Eclipses,  and  Transits,  and  indeed  all  the  most  interesting  and 
wonderful  phenomena  of  the  Mechanism  of  the  Heavens.  The  sixteen 
Maps  cover  an  area  of  nearly  200  square  feet.  They  are  printed  upon  a 
black  ground,  answering  to  the  natural  appearance  of  the  heavens  in 
the  night,  and  are  beautifully  colored,  and  mounted  upon  slats  and 
rollers.  They  are  beyond  comparison  the  most  splendid  and  complete 
series  of  scientific  charts  ever  published 'in  this  country.  They  are  not 
only  invaluable  for  Seminaries,  Academies,  and  the  higher  institutions 
of  learning,  but,  at  the  same  time,  are  admirably  adapted  to  popular 
use  in  Common  Schools.  Maps,  per  set,  in  case,  on  strong  paper,  with- 
out cloth  backs,  $15. 

Jgp5*’  Each  Set  of  Maps  is  nicely  packed  in  a Wooden  Case,  and  can 
be  sent  to  order  with  perfect  safety  to  any  part  of  the  United  States  or 
Canada. 


GEOGRAPHY  OF  THE  HEAVENS, 

And  Class-Book  of  Astronomy  $ 

Accompanied  by  a Celestial  Atlas.  By  Elijah  H.  Burritt,  A.  M.  A 
New  Edition,  Revised  and  Illustrated  by  Professor  H.  Mattison. 

This  is  simply  such  a thorough  revision,  both  of  the  Text  and  Atlas 
of  this  standard  work,  as  was  demanded  by  recent  discoveries  and  new 
classifications  in  the  science.  The  Questions  and  Mythological  History 
are  retained,  and  about  fifty  illustrative  cuts  have  been  added,  which 

freatly  enhance  both  the  beauty  and  practical  utility  of  the  work, 
’rice  $1  25. 


CHART  OF  ARITHMETICAL  TABLES, 

For  the  School-Room. 

This  Chart  consists  of  twenty  distinct  Tables ; namely,  Numeration, 
Arithmetical  Signs,  Multiplication,  Long  Measure,  Square  Measure, 
Cubic  Measure,  Circular  Measure,  &c.  It  is  printed  in  very  large  type, 
on  strong  and  well  sized  paper,  and  upon  a sheet  44  by  56  inches. 

The  main  use  of  this  Chart  is  for  learning  the  Tables  in  concert,  the 
Teacher  using  a pointer,  and  the  School  running  over  the  whole  Chart,, 
perhaps  twice  a day.  This  exercise  will  not  only  have  much  of  the 
effect  of  singing  in  the  School;  as  a pastime,  and  relaxation  from 
study ; but  will,  in  a short  time,  fix  the  Tables  indelibly  in  the  mind  of 
every  student. 

Price,  bound  and  mounted  with  slats  and  rollers,  $2. 


' 


